Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>> In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.
> Yeah. I think the reason we haven't seen any complaints about this
> before is that the worst-case scenario is that a comment for a dropped
> database object eventually becomes associated with a new database
Well, in general there is very little DDL locking for any object type
other than tables. I think the original rationale for that was that
most other object types are defined by single catalog entries, so that
attempts to update/delete the object would naturally block on changing
its tuple anyway. But between comments and pg_depend entries that seems
not particularly true anymore.
IIRC there is now some attempt to lock objects of all types during
DROP. Maybe the COMMENT code could acquire a conflicting lock.
>> For example, we need to acquire a lock on the pg_type catalog when we
>> try to comment on any type object. Perhaps, I think LockRelationOid()
>> should be injected at head of the CommentType() in this case.
>> Any comments?
> A more fine-grained lock would be preferable,
s/preferable/essential/. This cure would be *far* worse than the
disease. Can you say "deadlock"?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-06 14:42:16|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes. |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-06 14:21:06|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix log_temp_files docs and comments to say bytes not kilobytes.|