| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: XX000: tuple concurrently deleted during DROP STATISTICS |
| Date: | 2023-11-08 19:58:14 |
| Message-ID: | 751183.1699473494@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/8/23 16:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Shouldn't DROP STATISTICS be taking a lock on the associated table
>> that is strong enough to lock out ANALYZE?
> Yes, I think that's the correct thing to do. I recall having a
> discussion about this with someone while working on the patch, leading
> to the current code. But I haven't managed to find that particular bit
> in the archives :-(
> Anyway, the attached patch should fix this by getting the lock, I think.
This looks generally correct, but surely we don't need it to be as
strong as AccessExclusiveLock? There seems no reason to conflict with
ordinary readers/writers of the table.
ANALYZE takes ShareUpdateExclusiveLock, and offhand I think this
command should do the same.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-11-08 20:12:16 | Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-11-08 19:52:16 | Re: XID-wraparound hazards in LISTEN/NOTIFY |