Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2010/7/6 KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>:
>> In the following scenario, we can see orphan comments.
> Yeah. I think the reason we haven't seen any complaints about this
> before is that the worst-case scenario is that a comment for a dropped
> database object eventually becomes associated with a new database
> object.
Well, in general there is very little DDL locking for any object type
other than tables. I think the original rationale for that was that
most other object types are defined by single catalog entries, so that
attempts to update/delete the object would naturally block on changing
its tuple anyway. But between comments and pg_depend entries that seems
not particularly true anymore.
IIRC there is now some attempt to lock objects of all types during
DROP. Maybe the COMMENT code could acquire a conflicting lock.
>> For example, we need to acquire a lock on the pg_type catalog when we
>> try to comment on any type object. Perhaps, I think LockRelationOid()
>> should be injected at head of the CommentType() in this case.
>>
>> Any comments?
> A more fine-grained lock would be preferable,
s/preferable/essential/. This cure would be *far* worse than the
disease. Can you say "deadlock"?
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
