Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To: - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:
Date
Msg-id 13336.1393963717@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe Reply-To:  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-03-04 11:40:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't care for (2).  I'd like to have lock strength reduction as
>> much as anybody, but it can't come at the price of reduction of
>> reliability.

> I am sorry, but I think this is vastly overstating the scope of the
> pg_dump problem. CREATE INDEX *already* doesn't require a AEL, and the
> amount of problems that has caused in the past is surprisingly low.

CREATE INDEX happens to be okay because pg_dump won't try to dump indexes
it doesn't see in its snapshot, ie the list of indexes to dump is created
client-side.  CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, otoh, already did break pg_dump,
and we had to hack things to fix it; see commit
683abc73dff549e94555d4020dae8d02f32ed78b.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Date:
Subject: Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged"
Next
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)