On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, I notice that the MVCC-catalog-scans patch summarily asserts that
>>> RenumberEnumType no longer poses any concurrency hazards. I doubt that's
>>> true: isn't it s
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, I notice that the MVCC-catalog-scans patch summarily asserts that
>> RenumberEnumType no longer poses any concurrency hazards. I doubt that's
>> true: isn't it still possible that pg_enum rows acquired through the
>>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> ISTM that we shouldn't use GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c but
>> GetLatestSnapshot() in <= 9.3 and NULL/GetCatalogSnapshot() > 9.3.
>
>> typecache.c's usage was converted to GetLatestSnapshot() but enum.c's
>> was not
Andres Freund writes:
> ISTM that we shouldn't use GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c but
> GetLatestSnapshot() in <= 9.3 and NULL/GetCatalogSnapshot() > 9.3.
> typecache.c's usage was converted to GetLatestSnapshot() but enum.c's
> was not.
That was intentional, see the comments for commit
9ad4
Hi,
ISTM that we shouldn't use GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c but
GetLatestSnapshot() in <= 9.3 and NULL/GetCatalogSnapshot() > 9.3.
typecache.c's usage was converted to GetLatestSnapshot() but enum.c's
was not.
I don't seem to have full mental capacity right now, but I think the
current usa
