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=ynQJVvy6KtN=UGi-BO4ipTDoJ2w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 4. Backend #2 visits the new, about-to-be-committed version of
> pgbench_accounts' pg_class row just before backend #3 commits.
> It sees the row as not good and keeps scanning.  By the time it
> reaches the previous version of the row, however, backend #3
> *has* committed.  So that version isn't good according to SnapshotNow
> either.

<thinks some more>

Why isn't this a danger for every pg_class update?  For example, it
would seem that if VACUUM updates relpages/reltuples, it would be
prone to this same hazard.

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joseph Adams
Date:
Subject: Re: Another swing at JSON
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe