| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c |
| Date: | 2013-08-26 20:31:21 |
| Message-ID: | 15314.1377549081@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> BTW, I notice that the MVCC-catalog-scans patch summarily asserts that
>> RenumberEnumType no longer poses any concurrency hazards. I doubt that's
>> true: isn't it still possible that pg_enum rows acquired through the
>> syscaches will have inconsistent enumsortorder values, if they were
>> read at different times? If you want to examine enumsortorder, you really
>> need to be comparing rows you know were read with the *same* snapshot.
> Good point, I missed that. Here's a proposed comment patch.
Looks sane to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-26 20:35:57 | Re: pg_system_identifier() |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-08-26 20:17:34 | Re: pg_restore multiple --function options |