Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2018-12-20 21:11:47
Message-ID: 20181220211147.oy3a46ihq53fslzj@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-Dec-20, Robert Haas wrote:

> I didn't handle that. If partition pruning relies on nothing changing
> between planning and execution, isn't that broken regardless of any of
> this? It's true that with the simple query protocol we'll hold locks
> continuously from planning into execution, and therefore with the
> current locking regime we couldn't really have a problem. But unless
> I'm confused, with the extended query protocol it's quite possible to
> generate a plan, release locks, and then reacquire locks at execution
> time. Unless we have some guarantee that a new plan will always be
> generated if any DDL has happened in the middle, I think we've got
> trouble, and I don't think that is guaranteed in all cases.

Oh, so maybe this case is already handled by plan invalidation -- I
mean, if we run DDL, the stored plan is thrown away and a new one
recomputed. IOW this was already a solved problem and I didn't need to
spend effort on it. /me slaps own forehead

--
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 Robert Haas 2018-12-20 21:38:51 Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-12-20 21:07:10 Re: lock level for DETACH PARTITION looks sketchy