On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 19:00, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> It is an idea if no better one can be found, unless we don't want ALTER
> DOMAIN at all, which doesn't seem good.
I'll make a proposal for 'Object' locks as suggested, and we'll see
where we go from there.
--
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP
It is an idea if no better one can be found, unless we don't want ALTER
DOMAIN at all, which doesn't seem good.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have an idea. Rather than doing some comp
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have an idea. Rather than doing some complex locking for types, why
> don't we just restrict ALTER DOMAIN to cases where we are the only one
> attached to the database, as seen in dropdb().
Yech!
> would allow the regression test to work too because
Rod Taylor wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 00:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 22:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> relation's pg_class row. We have no such locks on types at present,
> > >> but I think it may be tim
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 00:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 22:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> relation's pg_class row. We have no such locks on types at present,
> >> but I think it may be time to invent 'em.
>
> > I'd be happy to use them once create
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 22:56, Tom Lane wrote:
>> relation's pg_class row. We have no such locks on types at present,
>> but I think it may be time to invent 'em.
> I'd be happy to use them once created.
I think you misunderstood me ;=) ... that was a none-
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where does that leave the patch _until_ they are created?
I'd say "it's under death sentence unless fixed before 7.4 release".
I don't want to back it out in toto right now, because that will
interfere with other edits I'm in process of making (and also
Rod Taylor wrote:
> > relation's pg_class row. We have no such locks on types at present,
> > but I think it may be time to invent 'em.
>
> I'd be happy to use them once created.
>
> Thanks again for the help.
Where does that leave the patch _until_ they are created?
--
Bruce Momjian
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 22:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 2. Insufficient locking, guise 2: there's no protection against someone
> >> else adding a column or table while you're processing an ALTER DOMAIN,
> >> either. This means that constraint checks will be miss
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2. Insufficient locking, guise 2: there's no protection against someone
>> else adding a column or table while you're processing an ALTER DOMAIN,
>> either. This means that constraint checks will be missed. Example:
> Locking the entry in pg_type doesn't
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 12:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been looking at the recently-committed ALTER DOMAIN patch, and I
> think it's got some serious if not fatal problems. Specifically, the
> approach to adding/dropping constraints associated with domains doesn't
> work.
>
> 1. Insufficient locking
I've been looking at the recently-committed ALTER DOMAIN patch, and I
think it's got some serious if not fatal problems. Specifically, the
approach to adding/dropping constraints associated with domains doesn't
work.
1. Insufficient locking, guise 1: there's no protection against someone
else dro
12 matches
Mail list logo
