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


From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Date: 2000-08-03 20:08:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> Accordingly, this patch is not needed anymore in current sources, though
> it'd still be the most convenient fix for 7.0.* series if anyone is
> concerned enough to apply it.
Yeah, actually, a friend of mine ran into this recently with incorrect 
create constraint trigger statements so I already was going to send a
patch to him, then it got mentioned on -bugs.

> A possibly more important issue: why are the RI triggers opening the
> referenced rel with NoLock anyway?  Doesn't that leave you open to
> someone deleting the referenced rel out from under you while you are
> working with it?  Seems like at minimum you should grab AccessShareLock.
That's a good point.  To be honest, I don't really know why it's not
grabbing a lock (Jan?).  As a general newbie question for such things,
what happens to your relation pointer if it were to be deleted out
from under?  I figure that if it gets to the actual query, it will fail
(unless someone were to create a table with that name in the meantime -

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-03 20:12:52
Subject: Re: comparing rows
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-03 19:57:47
Subject: Re: Toasting more system-table columns

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Paulo Roberto SiqueiraDate: 2000-08-04 01:05:28
Subject: pg_dump problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-03 19:33:37
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE

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