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 23479.1325616160@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
>> Another point that requires some thought is that switching SnapshotNow
>> to be MVCC-based will presumably result in a noticeable increase in each
>> backend's rate of wanting to acquire snapshots.

BTW, I wonder if this couldn't be ameliorated by establishing some
ground rules about how up-to-date a snapshot really needs to be.
Arguably, it should be okay for successive SnapshotNow scans to use the
same snapshot as long as we have not acquired a new lock in between.
If not, reusing an old snap doesn't introduce any race condition that
wasn't there already.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: improve pg_restore warning on text dump input