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...@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
