Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2011-06-17 21:08:25
Message-ID: 24498.1308344905@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm, would there be a problem if a scan on catalog A yields results from
> supposedly-running transaction X but another scan on catalog B yields
> result from transaction Y? (X != Y) For example, a scan on pg_class
> says that there are N triggers but scanning pg_trigger says N-1?

Yeah, I came to that same conclusion downthread.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-06-17 21:17:03 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-06-17 21:02:41 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe