Re: Introducing find_all_inheritors_ordered()

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Introducing find_all_inheritors_ordered()
Date: 2026-09-08 20:42:55
Message-ID: CAN4CZFNBn+rQst=6_3HDLksbT_EHe_5SUc0X5ECu=3HV1gE0vA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 08 Sep 2026, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Why is it a valid scenario, and how would we reach it? It's going to
> > cause tons of problems if it can happen, so I'd rather put effort into
> > blocking it than making some parts of the system cope.
>
> +1
>
> I can look into if we can prevent concurrent ALTER TABLE ... INHERIT commands from creating cycles at a reasonable cost, and start a separate discussion.

+1 for that, if it is doable, I didn't investigate it further than the
comment's claim that it is too difficult.

I didn't want to say that I think it is a real-usable scenario, I
meant valid as currently reachable (as showcased by the isolation
tester spec I posted), that probably wasn't the best word to describe
it.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2026-09-08 20:58:25 Re: Speed up COPY FROM text/CSV parsing using SIMD
Previous Message Ilia Evdokimov 2026-09-08 20:33:17 Re: Fix var_eq_const: sum selectivity of all matching MCV entries instead of stopping at first match