Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:
Date: 2014-03-04 22:41:55
Message-ID: CAM-w4HM-JVTSs1czXQSZUpE8PD+egv10q0E7qGVrc9aC9mvNgQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, otoh, already did break pg_dump,
> and we had to hack things to fix it; see commit
> 683abc73dff549e94555d4020dae8d02f32ed78b.

Well pg_dump was only broken in that there was a new catalog state to
deal with. But the commit you linked to was fixing pg_upgrade which
was broken because the on-disk schema was then out of sync with what
pg_dump would generate. But that should only matter for creating or
deleting whole relations.
--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-03-04 22:43:55 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-03-04 22:39:01 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe