On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I agree the scope for RELOID errors increased with my 9.1 patch. I'm > now happy with the locking patch (attached), which significantly > reduces the scope - back to the original error scope, in my testing. > > I tried to solve both, but I think that's a step too far given the timing. > > It seems likely that there will be objections to this patch. All I > would say is that issuing a stream of ALTER TABLEs against the same > table is not a common situation; if it were we would have seen more of > the pre-existing bug. ALTER TABLE command encompasses many subcommands > and we should evaluate each subcommand differently when we decide what > to do.
Well, my principal objection is that I think heavyweight locking is an excessively expensive solution to this problem. I think the patch is simple enough that I wouldn't object to applying it on those grounds even at this late date, but I bet if we do some benchmarking on the right workload we'll find a significant performance regression. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
