From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index created in BEFORE trigger not updated during INSERT |
Date: | 2017-06-03 22:23:33 |
Message-ID: | 25126.1496528613@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Hm, strategically sprinkled CheckTableNotInUse() might do the trick?
> +1. We can't reasonably make it work: the outer query already has its
> list of indexes that need to be inserted into. Also, if you try to
> make the index via ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT in the trigger, that will
> give you "cannot ALTER TABLE "mytable" because it is being used by active
> queries in this session" because of the check in AlterTable().
Attached is a proposed patch that closes off this problem. I've tested
it to the extent that it blocks Albe's example and passes check-world.
I'm unsure whether to back-patch or not; the main argument for not doing
so is that if any extensions are calling DefineIndex() directly, this
would be an API break for them. Given what a weird case this is, I'm not
sure it's worth that.
A possible end-run around the API objection would be to not add an extra
argument to DefineIndex() in the back branches, but to use !is_alter_table
as the control condition. That would work for the core callers, although
we might need a special case for bootstrap mode. On the other hand,
thinking again about hypothetical third-party callers, it's possible that
that's not the right answer for them, in which case they'd be really in
trouble. So I'm not that much in love with that answer.
> It doesn't seem terribly hard to fix the CREATE INDEX case to behave
> likewise, but I wonder how many other cases we've missed?
That remains an open question :-(
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
block-create-index-from-a-trigger.patch | text/x-diff | 3.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-06-03 22:30:59 | Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name? |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2017-06-03 21:15:09 | Re: Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflict tracking in serializable transactions |