Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address
Date: 2011-06-22 01:50:14
Message-ID: BANLkTim2i=L+BkK9fcfUOeF6oCXv_=b6yg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> Sorry, the previous revision did not update regression test part
> towards the latest one.

Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
because you're basically making the relation locking happen later than
it does not, and that's going to cause problems.
get_object_address_relobject() is a particularly egregious
rearrangement. It seems to me that the right formula is to call
relation_openrv() if missing_ok is false, and try_relation_openrv() if
missing_ok is true. But that's sort of a pain, so I propose to first
apply the attached patch, which gets rid of try_relation_openrv() and
try_heap_openrv() and instead adds a missing_ok argument to
relation_openrv() and heap_openrv(). If we do this, then the
missing_ok argument can just be passed through all the way down.

Thoughts? Comments? Objections?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
there-is-no-try.patch application/octet-stream 21.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-06-22 01:54:49 Re: SSI tuning points
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-06-22 00:27:45 WIP pgindent replacement