Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE

On 2018-Aug-16, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:39:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The original patches would, I think, have been pretty scary to
> > back-patch, since the infrastructure didn't exist in older branches
> > and we were churning a fairly large amount of code. Now that most
> > places are fixed and things have had five years to bake, we could
> > conceivably back-patch the remaining fixes. However, I wonder if
> > we've really looked into how many instances of this problem remain.
> > If there's still ten more that we haven't bothered to fix,
> > back-patching one or two that we've gotten around to doing something
> > about doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>
> If we are confident enough to say that all the holes have been patched,
> then we could only back-patch down to v11 in my opinion as REINDEX
> needed a change of behavior for the handling of shared catalog.

I searched for uses of RangeVarGetRelid, as well as heap_openrv and
relation_openrv, and there are a couple that looks very suspicious. I
don't think we can claim yet that all holes are fixed.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services