Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date: 2012-01-03 01:18:41
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+u0Dy-EcLUGgVsyjQLA6K-1Wpe+g9eUfoEMCGirYhnng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:09:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Attached patch makes SnapshotNow into an MVCC snapshot, initialised at
>>> the start of each scan iff SnapshotNow is passed as the scan's
>>> snapshot. It's fairly brief but seems to do the trick.
>>
>> That's a neat trick.  However, if you start a new SnapshotNow scan while one is
>> ongoing, the primordial scan's snapshot will change mid-stream.
>
> Do we ever do that? (and if so, Why?!? or perhaps just Where?)

Just for the record, yes we do run multiple catalog scans in some
parts of the code.

So I can see how we might trigger 4 nested scans, using cache
replacement while scanning, so best assume more, with no guarantee of
them being neatly stacked for pop/push type access.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2012-01-03 04:40:38 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-03 00:12:21 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe