From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, jyih(at)pivotal(dot)io, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Prevent concurrent DROP SCHEMA when certain objects are being initially created in the namespace |
Date: | 2018-09-08 19:53:03 |
Message-ID: | 20180908195303.GJ32058@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:19:15PM -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> I also run some similar tests as Jimmy pointed and using PLpgSQL to execute
> DDLs and the new consistent behavior is ok. Also I run one session using
> DROP SCHEMA at end and after COMMIT the session 2 report 'ERROR: schema
> "testschema" does not exist', so avoiding concerns about lock overhead
> seems the proposed patch is ok.
Thanks Fabrízio for the review.
I think so too, patching the low-level API is I think a proper way to go
particularly for back-branches because referencing objects which do not
exist at catalog level is a consistency problem.
Double-checking for the callers of QualifiedNameGetCreationNamespace,
CREATE STATISTICS could be called with CREATE TABLE LIKE, where it would
not get called but the table reference blocks the schema drop.
I am thinking about adding more tests to cover all the callers of
QualifiedNameGetCreationNamespace with:
- range type
- domain
- enum type
- statictics
- text search
- composite type
This way if any refactoring is done with this routine, then we don't
break schema lock logic. Andres, Tom and others, any objections?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-08 20:07:21 | Re: Does logical replication slot itself would be physically replicated to slaves? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-08 19:25:29 | Re: remove duplicated words in comments .. across lines |