From: Andres Freund <af@cybertec.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:04:58 +0100
Message-ID: <200912211704.59321.af@cybertec.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15331.1261409887@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200912210402.37850.andres@anarazel.de>
<20091221152534.GB3913@alvh.no-ip.org>
<15331.1261409887@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Monday 21 December 2009 16:38:07 Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Andres Freund wrote:
> >> The logic behind this seems fine except in the case of dropping a
> >> database. There you very well might have a open connection without an
> >> open snapshot.
> > Perhaps the simplest fix is to ensure that drop database gets a snapshot?
> I confess to not having followed the thread closely, but why is DROP
> DATABASE special in this regard? Wouldn't we soon find ourselves
> needing every utility command to take a snapshot?
Because most other "entities" are locked when you access them. So on the
standby the AccessExlusive (generated on the master) will conflict with
whatever lock you currently have on that entity (on the slave).
There are no locks for an idle session though.
Andres
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: af@cybertec.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@commandprompt.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs
In-Reply-To: <200912211704.59321.af@cybertec.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox