Re: unlink for DROPs after releasing locks (was Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: unlink for DROPs after releasing locks (was Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?)
Date
Msg-id 20664.1339364270@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: unlink for DROPs after releasing locks (was Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: unlink for DROPs after releasing locks (was Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> Agreed.  We now have $OLD_SUBJECT, but this is a win independently.  I have
>> reviewed the code that runs between the old and new call sites, and I did not
>> identify a hazard of moving it as you describe.

> I looked at this when we last discussed it and didn't see a problem
> either, so I tend to agree that we ought to go ahead and do this,

+1, as long as you mean in 9.3 not 9.2.  I don't see any risk either,
but the time for taking new risks in 9.2 is past.

Noah, please add this patch to the upcoming CF, if you didn't already.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets