Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: relation ### modified while in use

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: relation ### modified while in use
Date: 2000-10-31 05:29:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> writes:
> > I think this happens after I create/modify tables which reference this
> > table. This is spontaneous, and doesn't _always_ happen...
> Um.  I was hoping it was something more easily fixable :-(.  What's
> causing the relcache to decide that the rel has been modified is the
> addition or removal of foreign-key triggers on the rel.  Which seems
> legitimate.  (It's barely possible that we could get away with allowing
> triggers to be added or deleted mid-transaction, but that doesn't feel
> right to me.)
> There are two distinct known bugs that allow the error to be reported.
> These have been discussed before, but to recap:
> 1. relcache will complain if the notification of cache invalidation
> arrives after transaction start and before first use of the referenced
> rel (when there was already a relcache entry left over from a prior
> transaction).  In this situation we should allow the change to occur
> without complaint, ISTM.  But the relcache doesn't currently have any
> concept of first reference versus later references.

Do we have a conclusion about this thread ?
If no,how about changing heap_open(r) so that they allocate
Relation descriptors after acquiring a lock on the table ?
We would use LockRelation() no longer.

Comments ?

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-10-31 05:41:44
Subject: Re: WAL status update
Previous:From: Arnold GamboaDate: 2000-10-31 05:25:04
Subject: how good is PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group