Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables
Date
Msg-id 20200114215942.GA18482@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Jan-13, Tom Lane wrote:

> That seems fundamentally wrong.  By the time we've queued an object for
> deletion in dependency.c, we have a lock on it, and we've verified that
> the object is still there (cf. systable_recheck_tuple calls).
> If shdepDropOwned is doing it differently, I'd say shdepDropOwned is
> doing it wrong.

Hmm, it seems to be doing it differently.  Maybe it should be acquiring
locks on all objects in that nested loop and verified them for
existence, so that when it calls performMultipleDeletions the objects
are already locked, as you say.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: aggregate crash
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Setting min/max TLS protocol in clientside libpq