| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: executor relation handling |
| Date: | 2018-10-01 19:04:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f8cYQP64jsNU1-vLmE9Z1mCx_+0zjCgA_kCWfddmcLz_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 October 2018 at 19:39, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> For this and the other cases (AcquireRewriteLocks, AcquireExecutorLocks,
> etc.), I wonder whether we couldn't just *not* recalculate the lock mode
> based on inspecting the query tree to cross-check with rellockmode? Why
> not just use rellockmode for locking? Maybe, okay to keep doing that in
> debug builds though. Also, are the discrepancies like this to be
> considered bugs of the existing logic?
I got the impression Tom was just leaving that in for a while to let
the buildfarm verify the new code is getting the same lock level as
the old code. Of course, I might be wrong.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-10-01 19:05:53 | Re: has_column_privilege behavior (was Re: Assert failed in snprintf.c) |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2018-10-01 19:00:42 | Re: has_column_privilege behavior (was Re: Assert failed in snprintf.c) |