Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2014-01-28 17:46:10
Message-ID: 20140128174610.GE18333@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-01-27 15:25:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > This version adds a GUC called ddl_exclusive_locks which allows us to
> > keep the 9.3 behaviour if we wish it. Some people may be surprised
> > that their programs don't wait in the same places they used to. We
> > hope that is a positive and useful behaviour, but it may not always be
> > so.
> >
> > I'll commit this on Thurs 30 Jan unless I hear objections.
>
> I haven't reviewed the patch, but -1 for adding a GUC.

Dito. I don't think the patch in a bad shape otherwise. I'd very quickly
looked at a previous version and it did look rather sane, and several
other people had looked at earlier versions as well. IIRC Noah had a
fairly extensive look at some intricate race conditions...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Atri Sharma 2014-01-28 17:46:36 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] GSoC 2014 - mentors, students and admins
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-01-28 17:42:46 Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c