| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 15:49:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVidb=3kZ1oY7rmwkYti9BGh==j086QsNJMUVzhPx6COqVg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Atri Sharma (atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > If its not the case, the user should be more careful about when he is
> > scheduling backups to so that they dont conflict with DDL changes.
>
> I'm not following this as closely as I'd like to, but I wanted to voice
> my opinion that this is just not acceptable as a general answer. There
> are a good many applications out there which do DDL as part of ongoing
> activity (part of ETL, or something else) and still need to be able to
> get a pg_dump done. It's not a design I'd recommend, but I don't think
> we get to just write it off either.
>
>
Well, that will require something like MVCC or stricter locking in general.
That is not in line with the aim of this patch, hence I raised this point.
Regards,
Atri
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-03-04 15:52:47 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-03-04 15:45:06 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |