| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
| Date: | 2018-09-11 16:18:59 |
| Message-ID: | 29306.1536682739@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-09-11 12:03:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If the startup process has acquired enough AELs to approach locktable
>> full, any concurrent pg_dump has probably failed already, because it'd
>> be trying to share-lock every table and so would have a huge conflict
>> cross-section; it's hard to believe it wouldn't get cancelled pretty
>> early in that process. (Again, if you think this scenario is probable,
>> you have to explain the lack of field complaints.)
> I was thinking of the other way round - there's a running pg_dump and
> then somebody does a bit of DDL (say a DROP SCHEMA CASCADE in a
> multi-tenant scenario).
Doesn't matter: startup would hit a lock conflict and cancel the pg_dump
to get out of it, long before approaching locktable full.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-11 16:20:37 | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-11 16:12:32 | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |