On 29 January 2014 05:43, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Honestly, I would prefer that we push a patch that has been thoroughly
>>> reviewed and in which we have more confidence, so that we can push
>>> without a GUC.  This means mark in CF as needs-review, then some other
>>> developer reviews it and marks it as ready-for-committer.
>> I also believe that would be the correct procedure.  Personally, I
>> think it would be great if Noah can review this, as he's very good at
>> finding the kind of problems that are likely to crop up here, and has
>> examined previous versions.  I also have some interest in looking at
>> it myself.  But I doubt that either of us (or any other senior hacker)
>> can do that by Thursday.  I think all such people are hip-deep in
>> other patches at the moment; I certainly am.
> Yeah.  I actually have little doubt that the patch is sane on its own
> terms of discussion, that is that Simon has chosen locking levels that
> are mutually consistent in an abstract sense.  What sank the previous
> iteration was that he'd failed to consider an implementation detail,
> namely possible inconsistencies in SnapshotNow-based catalog fetches.
> I'm afraid that there may be more such problems lurking under the
> surface.


> Noah's pretty good at finding such things, but really two
> or three of us need to sit down and think about it for awhile before
> I'd have much confidence in such a fundamental change.  And I sure don't
> have time for this patch right now myself.

I've reviewed Noah's earlier comments, fixed things and also further
reviewed for any similar relcache related issues.

I've also reviewed Hot Standby to see if any locking issues arise,
since the ALTER TABLE now won't generate an AccessExclusiveLock as it
used to do for certain operations. I can't see any problems there.

While doing those reviews, I'd remind everybody that this only affects
roughly half of ALTER TABLE subcommands and definitely nothing that
affects SELECTs. So the risk profile is much less than it sounds at
first glance.

If anybody else has any hints or clues about where to look, please
mention them and I will investigate. Thanks.

 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to