Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities
Date: 2018-08-28 19:30:31
Message-ID: 20180828193031.ahilzgnpkug6x45c@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-Aug-28, Tom Lane wrote:

> ... just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...
>
> Doesn't pg_backup_archiver.c's identify_locking_dependencies() need to
> treat POLICY and ROW SECURITY items as requiring exclusive lock on
> the referenced table? Those commands definitely acquire
> AccessExclusiveLock in a quick test.
>
> I haven't looked hard, but I'm suspicious that other recently-added
> dump object types may have been missed here too,

I hadn't come across this locking dependency before, so it's pretty
likely that partitioned index attachment has a problem here.

> and even more suspicious that we'll forget this again in future.

... yeah, it seems easy to overlook the need to edit this.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Asim R P 2018-08-28 19:34:30 Re: Catalog corruption
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2018-08-28 19:30:05 Re: Dimension limit in contrib/cube (dump/restore hazard?)