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

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2009-12-19 01:58:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> In both cases, I'm lost.  Help?
> They might be contrasted with the comments for myLargeObjectExists.
> Since we use MVCC visibility in loread(), metadata for large object
> also should be visible in MVCC rule.
> If I understand them, they say:
>  * pg_largeobject_aclmask_snapshot requires a snapshot which will be
>    used in loread().
>  * Don't use LargeObjectExists if you need MVCC visibility.

Part of what I'm confused about (and what I think should be documented
in a comment somewhere) is why we're using MVCC visibility in some
places but not others.  In particular, there seem to be some bits of
the comment that imply that we do this for read but not for write,
which seems really strange.  It may or may not actually be strange,
but I don't understand it.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-19 02:01:30
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow read only connections during recovery, known as Hot
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-19 01:55:33
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

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