| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2017-04-08 00:38:35 |
| Message-ID: | 27309.1491611915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Interesting. I wonder if it's possible that a relcache invalidation
> would cause these values to get lost for some reason, because that would
> be dangerous.
> I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any
> operation that does things this way must hold an exclusive lock on the
> relation. But that doesn't guarantee that the relcache entry is
> completely stable,
It ABSOLUTELY is not safe. Relcache flushes can happen regardless of
how strong a lock you hold.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-08 00:41:28 | Re: Partitioned tables vs GRANT |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-08 00:36:51 | Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql |