From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" |
Date: | 2012-03-07 12:49:51 |
Message-ID: | 20120307124951.GA27744@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:05AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Well, consider something like CLUSTER. ?It's perfectly OK for CLUSTER
> >> to operate on a table that has been truncated since CLUSTER's snapshot
> >> was taken, and no serialization anomaly is created that would not have
> >> already existed as a result of the non-MVCC-safe TRUNCATE. ?On the
> >> other hand, if CLUSTER operates on a table that was created since
> >> CLUSTER's snapshot was taken, then you have a bona fide serialization
> >> anomaly.
> >
> > Core CLUSTER does not use any MVCC snapshot. ?We do push one for the benefit
> > of functions called during the reindex phase, but it does not appear that you
> > speak of that snapshot. ?Could you elaborate this example?
>
> Imagine this:
>
> - Transaction #1 acquires a snapshot.
> - Transaction #2 creates tables A, inserts a row into table B, and then commits.
> - Transaction #1 tries to CLUSTER A and then select from B.
>
> The only serial execution schedules are T1 < T2, in which case the
> transaction fails, or T2 < T1, in which case the row is seen. But
> what actually happens is that the row isn't seen and yet the
> transaction doesn't fail.
For the purpose of contemplating this anomaly, one could just as well replace
CLUSTER with GRANT, COMMENT ON TABLE, or any other command that operates on a
table, correct?
I agree this test case is good to keep in mind while designing, but we could
well conclude not to bother improving it.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-07 14:24:37 | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |
Previous Message | Shigeru Hanada | 2012-03-07 12:47:59 | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |