| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: missing locking in at least INSERT INTO view WITH CHECK |
| Date: | 2015-08-27 18:37:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCX4yCZZAagqQt_i4N7gMHQ6Qp9tnCbRZw3UwvZO0zqPog@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27 August 2015 at 19:29, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-08-27 19:19:35 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> It also seems to me that this warning has proved its worth
>
> Same here - I plan to re-submit it. Perhaps the number of bugs it found
> convinces Tom, after I address some of his points.
>
>> although I don't think it's something a production build should be
>> producing. Perhaps it could be an Assert?
>
> It's currently protected by a #ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING. A warning
> seems to make it easier to actually run the whole regression test, and
> it's consistent with what we do in a bunch of other places.
>
OK, that seems reasonable.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2015-08-27 20:01:46 | Re: Our trial to TPC-DS but optimizer made unreasonable plan |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-27 18:29:15 | Re: missing locking in at least INSERT INTO view WITH CHECK |