Hi.
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'd like somebody to close the loop with upstream OSSP authors first.
If they don't see anything broken about the makefile, and indicate
intention to incorporate it in some future release, then it's okay to
put it in our CV
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I see what's happening here. We have restricted two-phase commit
> so that you're not supposed to be able to PREPARE TRANSACTION if the
> transaction has touched any temporary tables. That's because the 2nd
> phase commit can be performe
I wrote:
> This explanation is nonsense; we certainly *are* holding a lock on any
> relation that's about to be dropped. Experimentation shows that
> AccessExclusiveLock is indeed held (you can see it in pg_locks), but
> nonetheless the PREPARE doesn't complain. Did you trace through
> exactly wh
For the list this time.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Gurjeet Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "could not open relation 1663/16384/16584: No such
file or directory" in a specific combination of transactions with temp
tables
To: Hei
I wrote:
> I think we need some better means of recording whether a lock is on a
> temp object. We could certainly add a flag to the LOCALLOCK struct,
> but it's not clear where a clean place to set it would be. As a rule
> we don't yet know when locking a relation whether it's temp or not.
Actu
