On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> The attached patch is rebased one towards the latest tree, using
> relation_openrv_extended().
Committed.
> Although it is not a matter in this patch itself, I found a problem on
> the upcoming patch
> that consolidate routines associated wi
The attached patch is rebased one towards the latest tree, using
relation_openrv_extended().
Although it is not a matter in this patch itself, I found a problem on
the upcoming patch
that consolidate routines associated with DropStmt.
Existing RemoveRelations() acquires a lock on the table owning
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > I agree with you. ?If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
>> > having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended()
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 01:28:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I agree with you. ?If we had a whole pile of options it might be worth
> > having heap_openrv() and heap_openrv_extended() so as not to
> > complicate the simple case, but since t
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
>>
>>> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
>>> alone and add a missing_ok argu
I revised my patch based on your "there-is-no-try-v2.patch".
It enabled to implement 'missing_ok' support without modification of
orders to solve the object name and relation locking.
Thanks,
2011/6/22 Robert Haas :
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Rob
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
>
>> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
>> alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
>> try_relation_openrv(). Pass
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 22 08:56:02 -0400 2011:
> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
> alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
> try_relation_openrv(). Passing true would give the same behavior as
> presently; passing f
Robert Haas writes:
> Another option might be to leave heap_openrv() and relation_openrv()
> alone and add a missing_ok argument to try_heap_openrv() and
> try_relation_openrv().
+1 for that, although the try_ prefix might be inappropriate naming
now; how about cond_relation_openrv?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:11:41PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Robert Haas writes:
>> >> Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
>> >> because you're basica
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
>> because you're basically making the relation locking happen later than
>> it does not, and that's going to cause problems.
>> get_object_address_rel
Robert Haas writes:
> Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
> because you're basically making the relation locking happen later than
> it does not, and that's going to cause problems.
> get_object_address_relobject() is a particularly egregious
> rearrangement. It
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> Sorry, the previous revision did not update regression test part
> towards the latest one.
Some of the refactoring you've done here seems likely to break things,
because you're basically making the relation locking happen later than
it does n
Sorry, the previous revision did not update regression test part
towards the latest one.
2011/6/19 Kohei KaiGai :
> Thanks for your review.
>
> 2011/6/19 Robert Haas :
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>>> The attached patch is a preparation to rework implementation of DROP
Thanks for your review.
2011/6/19 Robert Haas :
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> The attached patch is a preparation to rework implementation of DROP
>> statement
>> using a common code. That intends to apply get_object_address() to resolve
>> name
>> of objects to be r
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> The attached patch is a preparation to rework implementation of DROP statement
> using a common code. That intends to apply get_object_address() to resolve
> name
> of objects to be removed, and eventually minimizes the number of places to pu
The attached patch is a preparation to rework implementation of DROP statement
using a common code. That intends to apply get_object_address() to resolve name
of objects to be removed, and eventually minimizes the number of places to put
permission checks.
Its first step is an enhancement of get_o
17 matches
Mail list logo
