Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: change in LOCK behavior

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: change in LOCK behavior
Date: 2012-10-11 19:47:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11 October 2012 20:43, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> So we have to take the snapshot before you begin execution, but it
>> seems that to avoid surprising behavior we also have to take it after
>> acquiring locks.  And it looks like locking is intertwined with a
>> bunch of other parse analysis tasks that might require a snapshot to
>> have been taken first.  Whee.
> Yeah.  I think that a good solution to this would involve guaranteeing
> that the execution snapshot is not taken until we have all locks that
> are going to be taken on the tables.  Which is likely to involve a fair
> amount of refactoring, though I admit I've not looked at details.
> In any case, it's a mistake to think about this in isolation.  If we're
> going to do something about redefining SnapshotNow to avoid its race
> conditions, that's going to move the goalposts quite a lot.
> Anyway, my feeling about it is that I don't want 9.2 to have an
> intermediate behavior between the historical one and whatever we end up
> designing to satisfy these concerns.  That's why I'm pressing for
> reversion and not a band-aid fix in 9.2.  I certainly hope we can do
> better going forward, but this is not looking like whatever we come up
> with would be sane to back-patch.

Agreed, please revert.

 Simon Riggs         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-10-11 19:50:06
Subject: Re: Deprecating RULES
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-10-11 19:43:04
Subject: Re: change in LOCK behavior

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group