Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id 20140304014524.GE18320@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On 2014-03-03 20:32:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Afair (I really haven't rechecked) all the actions that have a changed
> > locklevels affect things that pg_dump recreates clientside, using a
> > repeatable read snapshot, so there shouldn't be much change there?
> 
> You're missing the point entirely if you think pg_dump recreates
> everything client-side. 

No, I am not obviously not thinking that. What I mean is that the things
that actually change their locking requirement in the proposed patch
primarily influence things that are reconstructed clientside by
pg_dump. E.g ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON, SET(...), ...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)