On Monday, June 21, 2021 11:23 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 12:56 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, the session in which we are doing Alter Function won't be able
> > to lock it but it will wait for the AccessExclusiveLock on the rel to
> > be released because it will also try to acquire it before sending
> > invalidation.
>
> I think users would not be very happy with such behavior. Users accept that if
> they try to access a relation, they might end up needing to wait for a lock on it,
> but what you are proposing here might make a session block waiting for a lock
> on a relation which it never attempted to access.
>
> I think this whole line of attack is a complete dead-end. We can invent new
> types of invalidations if we want, but they need to be sent based on which
> objects actually got changed, not based on what we think might be affected
> indirectly as a result of those changes. It's reasonable to regard something like
> a trigger or constraint as a property of the table because it is really a
> dependent object. It is associated with precisely one table when it is created
> and the association can never be changed. On the other hand, functions clearly
> have their own existence. They can be created and dropped independently of
> any table and the tables with which they are associated can change at any time.
> In that kind of situation, invalidating the table based on changes to the function
> is riddled with problems which I am pretty convinced we're never going to be
> able to solve. I'm not 100% sure what we ought to do here, but I'm pretty sure
> that looking up the tables that happen to be associated with the function in the
> session that is modifying the function is not it.
I agree that we should send invalid message like
" function OID's parallel safety has changed ". And when each session accept
this invalid message, each session needs to invalid the related table. Based on
previous mails, we only want to invalid the table that use this function in the
index expression/trigger/constraints. The problem is how to get all the related
tables. Robert-san suggested cache a list of pg_proc OIDs, that means we need
to rebuild the list everytime if the relcache is invalidated. The cost to do that
could be expensive, especially for extracting pg_proc OIDs from index expression,
because we need to invoke index_open(index, lock) to get the index expression.
Or, maybe we can let each session uses the pg_depend to get the related table and
invalid them after accepting the new type invalid message.
Best regards,
houzj
