| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value |
| Date: | 2014-01-07 01:53:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQpf8+YzMXSZVK=oqpVvEfbYJnhaaYx=T_an4Pe_25+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
> If concurrent TRUNCATE isn't safe outside of this case then why do we allow
> it? IE: why doesn't TRUNCATE exclusive lock the relation?
It *does*.
The problem is that the *other* transaction that's reading the
relation can still retain a TOAST pointer after it no longer holds the
lock. That's uncool.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-07 02:12:02 | Fixing bug #8228 ("set-valued function called in context that cannot accept a set") |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-01-07 01:51:57 | Re: truncating pg_multixact/members |