Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070912181758k70c78852gb32d9c41f162bb7d@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)  (Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
<itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> In both cases, I'm lost.  Help?
>
> They might be contrasted with the comments for myLargeObjectExists.
> Since we use MVCC visibility in loread(), metadata for large object
> also should be visible in MVCC rule.
>
> If I understand them, they say:
>  * pg_largeobject_aclmask_snapshot requires a snapshot which will be
>    used in loread().
>  * Don't use LargeObjectExists if you need MVCC visibility.

Part of what I'm confused about (and what I think should be documented
in a comment somewhere) is why we're using MVCC visibility in some
places but not others.  In particular, there seem to be some bits of
the comment that imply that we do this for read but not for write,
which seems really strange.  It may or may not actually be strange,
but I don't understand it.

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow read only connections during recovery, known as Hot