| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right? |
| Date: | 2019-05-03 07:37:07 |
| Message-ID: | 31d2cf8b-0d76-dd01-5e4e-d2280951ba70@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-05-02 10:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> so there's a lock upgrade hazard.
> Confirmed.
Here is a patch along the lines of your sketch. I cleaned up the
variable naming a bit too.
REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is still deadlock prone because of
WaitForOlderSnapshots(), so this doesn't actually fix your test case,
but that seems unrelated to this particular issue.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Fix-table-lock-levels-for-REINDEX-INDEX-CONCURRENTLY.patch | text/plain | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafia Sabih | 2019-05-03 07:44:54 | Re: [PATCH v1] Show whether tables are logged in \dt+ |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-05-03 07:33:41 | Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right? |