| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Date: | 2017-05-02 18:40:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoagN_3h2cPV31433zBJkEh=kvMmwzHYm64TgrOCBx2ing@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> But by the same token surely we don't want to do
>> CatalogUpdateIndexes() while holding the buffer lock either; mutual
>> exclusion needs to be managed at some higher level, using, say, a
>> heavyweight tuple lock.
>
> Right, I don't want that to happen - I think it means we need a proper
> lock here, but Peter seems to be against that for reasons I don't
> understand. It's what Michael had suggested in:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqRev_wK4k39hQBpQZRQ17v29guxfobnnmTYT_-hUU67BA%40mail.gmail.com
Yes, I didn't understand Peter's objection, either. It's true that
there are multiple levels of locks here, but if we've got things
failing that used to work, then we've not got all the right ones.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2017-05-03 04:32:54 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14634: On Windows pg_basebackup should write tar to stdout in binary mode |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-02 17:36:05 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-02 18:43:28 | Re: Logical replication - TRAP: FailedAssertion in pgstat.c |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-02 18:30:10 | Re: Bug in prepared statement cache invalidation? |