Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Hm, maybe we can drop the event trigger explicitely first, then wait a
>>> little bit, then drop the remaining objects with DROP CASCADE?
>> As I said, that's no fix; it just makes the timing harder to hit. Another
>> process could be paused at the critical point for longer than whatever "a
>> little bit" is.
> Yeah, I was thinking we could play some games with the currently running
> XIDs from a txid_snapshot or some such, with a reasonable upper limit on
> the waiting time (for the rare cases with a server doing other stuff
> with long-running transactions.)
Whether that's sane or not, the whole problem is so far out-of-scope for
a test of pg_get_object_address() that it's not even funny. I think
we should adopt one of the two fixes I recommended and call it good.
If you want to work on making DROP EVENT TRIGGER safer in the long run,
that can be a separate activity.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
