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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Date
Msg-id BANLkTi=0uPvo1B1yGVKEEg2J+g-7L124RA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Not so. The extra locking would only occur on the first lock
> acquisition after DDL operations occur. If that was common then your
> other performance patch would not be an effective optimisation. There
> is no additional locking from what I've proposed in the common code
> path - that's why we have a relcache.

The extra locking would also occur when *initially* building relcache
entries.  In other words, this would increase - likely quite
significantly - the overhead of backend startup.  It's not going to be
sufficient to do this just for pg_class; I think you'll have to do it
for pg_attribute, pg_attrdef, pg_constraint, pg_index, pg_trigger,
pg_rewrite, and maybe a few others I'm not thinking of right now.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: possible connection leak in dblink?