From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL |
Date: | 2017-11-29 15:47:21 |
Message-ID: | 9878.1511970441@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Isn't the first concern addressed by using SPI..?
I did not look at the patch yet, but TBH if it uses SPI for sub-operations
of ALTER TABLE I think that is sufficient reason to reject it out of hand.
Doing things that way would create way too much of a vulnerability surface
for code touching a partially-updated table. At minimum, we'd have to
blow holes in existing protections like CheckTableNotInUse, and I think
we'd be forever finding other stuff that failed to work quite right in
that context. I do not want ALTER TABLE going anywhere near the planner
or executor; I'm not even happy that it uses the parser (for index
definition reconstruction).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2017-11-29 15:52:36 | Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-11-29 15:46:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication |