From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
Date: | 2017-04-27 01:12:58 |
Message-ID: | 20170427011258.2tpv55b6leqe2uva@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-26 21:07:20 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/26/17 19:12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Well, there are more DDL commands where it is possible to see "tuple
> > concurrently updated" easily, an example is ALTER ROLE. So nothing is
> > concurrent-proof with this code and I think needs a careful lookup
> > because this error should never be something that is user-visible.
>
> Yeah, it's been like this since time immemorial, so I don't think we
> need a last minute fix now.
Uh. Until v10 this worked in a somewhat weird way, but it worked.
> One thing we could do, since all catalog updates now go through
> CatalogTupleUpdate(), is not use simple_heap_update() there but do the
> heap_update() directly and provide a better user-facing error message.
I think it's unacceptable to regress with an error message here. I've
seen sequence DDL being used while concurrent DML was onging in a number
of production use cases, and just starting to error out instead of
properly blocking doesn't seem acceptable to me.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-27 01:51:39 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-27 01:07:20 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-27 01:13:05 | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-27 01:10:33 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |