Re: SI-read predicate locks on materialized views

From: Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SI-read predicate locks on materialized views
Date: 2022-10-18 08:29:58
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Micheal-san,

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 17:02:06 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:12:13AM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > Thank you for comment. Do you think it can be marked as Ready for Commiter?
> Matviews have been discarded from needing predicate locks since
> 3bf3ab8 and their introduction, where there was no concurrent flavor
> of refresh yet. Shouldn't this patch have at least an isolation test
> to show the difference in terms of read-write conflicts with some
> serializable transactions and REFRESH CONCURRENTLY?

Thank you for your review. I agree that an isolation test is required.
The attached patch contains the test using the scenario as explained in
the previous post.

Yugo Nagata

Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-SI-read-predicate-locking-on-materialized-views.patch text/x-diff 5.9 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yugo NAGATA 2022-10-18 08:39:52 Re: make_ctags: use -I option to ignore pg_node_attr macro
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-10-18 08:14:52 Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File: "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 927, PID: 568639)