| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 01:45:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20140304014524.GE18320@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-03-03 20:32:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Afair (I really haven't rechecked) all the actions that have a changed
> > locklevels affect things that pg_dump recreates clientside, using a
> > repeatable read snapshot, so there shouldn't be much change there?
>
> You're missing the point entirely if you think pg_dump recreates
> everything client-side.
No, I am not obviously not thinking that. What I mean is that the things
that actually change their locking requirement in the proposed patch
primarily influence things that are reconstructed clientside by
pg_dump. E.g ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON, SET(...), ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-04 02:07:42 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-03-04 01:36:00 | Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views |