Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZmsjuTbjoUmuS7PT@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3 (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3
Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:49:34AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 4:41 AM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Do you still find the code hard to maintain with v9? > > I don't think it substantially changes my concerns as compared with > the earlier version. Thanks for the feedback, I'll give it more thoughts. > > > > but we're not similarly careful about other operations e.g. > > > ConstraintSetParentConstraint is called by DefineIndex which calls > > > table_open(childRelId, ...) first, but there's no logic in DefineIndex > > > to lock the constraint. > > > > table_open(childRelId, ...) would lock any "ALTER TABLE <childRelId> DROP CONSTRAINT" > > already. Not sure I understand your concern here. > > I believe this is not true. This would take a lock on the table, not > the constraint itself. I agree that it would not lock the constraint itself. What I meant to say is that , nevertheless, the constraint can not be dropped. Indeed, the "ALTER TABLE" necessary to drop the constraint (ALTER TABLE <childRelId> DROP CONSTRAINT) would be locked by the table_open(childRelId, ...). That's why I don't understand your concern with this particular example. But anyway, I'll double check your related concern: + if (object->classId == RelationRelationId || object->classId == AuthMemRelationId) + return; in depLockAndCheckObject(). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: