On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:10 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Sure. But I think what we can foresee is that if there are any bugs > reachable this way, they'd be reachable and need fixing regardless. > We've already established that parallel workers can take and release locks > that their leader isn't holding. Apparently, they won't take anything > stronger than RowExclusiveLock; but even AccessShare is enough to let a > process participate in all interesting behaviors of the lock manager, > including blocking, being blocked, and being released early by deadlock > resolution. And the advisory-lock functions are pretty darn thin wrappers > around the lock manager. So I'm finding it hard to see where there's > incremental risk, even if a user does intentionally bypass the parallel > safety markings. And what we get in return is an easier way to add tests > for this area.
Sure, I was basically just asking whether you could foresee any crash-risk of the proposed change. It sounds like the answer is "no," so I'm fine with it on that basis. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
