Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?
Date
Msg-id 3A5667DE.7C793339@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> >>>> It seems that init_irels() should be called after
> >>>> InitializeTransactionSystem() was called.
> >>
> >> Can we just swap the order of the RelationCacheInitialize() and
> >> InitializeTransactionSystem() calls in InitPostgres?  If that
> >> works, I'd have no objection.
> 
> > It doesn't work. InitializeTransactionSystem() requires
> > pg_log/pg_variable relations which are already built in
> > RelationCacheInitialize().
> 
> OK.  Second proposal: do the init_irels() call in
> RelationCacheInitializePhase2().  I've just looked through the
> other stuff that's done in between, and I don't think any of it
> needs valid relcache entries.
> 

Oops, I neglected to reply "agreed", sorry.
It would be much safer for init_irels() to be called
in a proper transaction than the current implementation.

Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ?