Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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