From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c |
Date: | 2013-08-28 17:24:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobzt30UE6uM4bO4=A-R9yJwW8tj7QiSwPEKVoLhquTn9Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> BTW, I notice that the MVCC-catalog-scans patch summarily asserts that
>>> RenumberEnumType no longer poses any concurrency hazards. I doubt that's
>>> true: isn't it still possible that pg_enum rows acquired through the
>>> syscaches will have inconsistent enumsortorder values, if they were
>>> read at different times? If you want to examine enumsortorder, you really
>>> need to be comparing rows you know were read with the *same* snapshot.
>
>> Good point, I missed that. Here's a proposed comment patch.
>
> Looks sane to me.
Thanks for the review. Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-08-28 17:31:22 | Re: Hstore: Query speedups with Gin index |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-28 17:21:01 | Re: Spinlock implementation on x86_64 (was Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4)) |