Re: executor relation handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: executor relation handling
Date
Msg-id 21609.1538401784@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: executor relation handling  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: executor relation handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> On 2018/10/01 2:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that the call sites should ultimately look like
>> Assert(CheckRelationLockedByMe(...));
>> but for hunting down the places where the assertion currently fails,
>> it's more convenient if it's just an elog(WARNING).

> Should this check that we're not in a parallel worker process?

Hmm.  I've not seen any failures in the parallel parts of the regular
regression tests, but maybe I'd better do a force_parallel_mode
run before committing.

In general, I'm not on board with the idea that parallel workers don't
need to get their own locks, so I don't really want to exclude parallel
workers from this check.  But if it's not safe for that today, fixing it
is beyond the scope of this particular patch.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: executor relation handling
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: automatic restore point