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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id 23377.1393899407@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-03-03 20:32:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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(...), ...

[ raised eyebrow... ]  I'm pretty sure that no such constraint was
part of the design discussion to start with.  Even if it accidentally
happens to be the case now, it sounds utterly fragile.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067)
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: jsonb and nested hstore