| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |
| Date: | 2022-12-14 21:22:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYWd+OLrHcZYjsKTTjb85VCw01O_Akh5Z63yuxx7PQMEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:18 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> So I don't see any evidence we skip any locking on pg_class when doing
> updates on rows for temporary tables.
I don't know what this means. You don't have to lock pg_class to
update rows in any table, whether temporary or otherwise.
You do have to lock a table in order to update its pg_class row,
though, whether the table is temporary or not. Otherwise, another
session could drop it while you're doing something with it, after
which bad things would happen.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2022-12-14 21:43:52 | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-12-14 20:56:59 | Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX |