Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade
Date: 2016-05-11 00:51:43
Message-ID: 20160511005143.GG22756@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think possibly the easiest fix for this is to have pg_upgrade,
> instead of RESETting a nonexistent option, RESET something that's
> still considered to require AccessExclusiveLock. "user_catalog_table"
> would work, looks like; though I'd want to annotate its entry in
> reloptions.c to warn people away from downgrading its lock level.
>
> More generally, though, I wonder how we can have some test coverage
> on such cases going forward. Is the patch below too ugly to commit
> permanently, and if so, what other idea can you suggest?

FYI, I only test _supported_ version combinations for pg_upgrade, i.e. I
don't test pg_upgrade _from_ unsupported versions, though I can see why
maybe I should.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-05-11 00:52:13 Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-05-11 00:50:16 Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution