Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> Let me explain further. Here is the comment in ExecOpenScanRelation:
> * Determine the lock type we need. First, scan to see if target
> relation
> * is a result relation. If not, check if it's a FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE
> * relation. In either of those cases, we got the lock already.
> I think this is not true for foreign tables selected FOR UPDATE/SHARE,
> which have markType = ROW_MARK_COPY, because such foreign tables don't
> get opened/locked by InitPlan. Then such foreign tables don't get
> locked by neither of InitPlan nor ExecOpenScanRelation. I think this is
> a bug.
You are right. I think it may not matter in practice, but if the executor
is taking its own locks here then it should not overlook ROW_MARK_COPY
cases.
> To fix it, I think we should open/lock such foreign tables at
> InitPlan as the original patch does.
I still don't like that; InitPlan is not doing something that would
require physical table access. The right thing is to fix
ExecOpenScanRelation's idea of whether InitPlan took a lock or not,
which I've now done.
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
