On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> What could the join removal path (and similar places) *possibly* do against >> such a case? Without stopping to use SnapshotNow I dont see any way :-( > > But the planner, along with most of the rest of the backend, *does* use > SnapshotNow when examining the system catalogs. > > I share your feeling of discomfort but so far I don't see a hole in > Simon's argument. Adding a constraint should never make a > previously-correct plan incorrect. Removing one is a very different > story, but he says he's not changing that case. (Disclaimer: I have > not read the patch.)
Perhaps we should start by deciding whether Andres' case is a bug in the first place, and then we can argue about whether it's a join-removal bug, a lock-weakening bug, or a preexisting bug. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
