| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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>, 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 13:03:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVie+TaRCmMnGVeAetYQSQavwQdc7QCdgrwr_Q544v=goTg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I'd really like to see us find a way to apply some version of this
> patch. I was in favor of the concept 3 years ago when we did this the
> first time, and I've subsequently done quite a bit of work (viz., MVCC
> catalog snapshots) to eliminate the main objection that was raised at
> that time. But it's really hard to reason about what might happen
> with lowered lock levels, and convince yourself that there's
> absolutely nothing that can ever go wrong. I don't know what to do
> about that tension, but I think even modest improvements in this area
> stand to benefit an awful lot of users.
>
Wouldnt MVCC's strictness rules pose harder restrictions on pg_dump instead
of relaxing them?
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2014-03-04 13:41:50 | Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2014-03-04 12:48:48 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |