| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <jdavis(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regression tests failures due to concurrent grants |
| Date: | 2026-09-18 18:08:43 |
| Message-ID: | 8efa9c42549c5a7d10c3876bf42f924ef28b6946.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2026-09-18 at 12:56 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> To do better, we would need to use a
> * self-exclusive lock, perhaps ShareUpdateExclusiveLock, here and
> before
> * *every* CatalogTupleUpdate() of a row that GRANT/REVOKE can
> affect.
...
> I also am not convinced that cancelling autovacs in response to a
> command like
> this would be the end of the world.
For GRANT/REVOKE, that matches my intuition. But if we need a stronger
lock before every modification of a catalog row, that's a larger change
that would affect lots of DDL.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2026-09-18 18:15:38 | Re: 64-bit MultiXactOffset vs. 9.3->9.4 upgrade, pg_resetwal, "wraparound" msg |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-09-18 17:58:06 | Re: Reject WAIT FOR earlier in transaction-snapshot mode |