From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Delay locking partitions during INSERT and UPDATE |
Date: | 2019-02-20 21:32:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobRPNwdkZ-P8_tEyckr0QsPf-pM9M-BV2ctaC=sVpz2Vg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:57 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I agree that any deadlock would have to involve somebody doing something
> quite odd --- not just one partition-oriented operation, but something
> taking multiple strong locks without regard to the partition structure.
> So I don't see a problem with taking that risk; people doing that sort
> of thing are probably at risk of deadlocks no matter what we do here.
OK.
> Looking at the patch itself, I agree that a bit more attention to comments
> is needed, and I wonder whether David has found all the places where
> it's now necessary to s/NoLock/RowExclusiveLock/. I don't have any
> other objections.
I spent some time thinking about that exact issue this morning and
studying the code to try to figure that out. I wasn't able to find
any other places that seemed to need updating, but it could be that I
missed something that David also missed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-02-20 21:41:11 | Re: BUG #15641: Autoprewarm worker fails to start on Windows with huge pages in use Old PostgreSQL community/pgsql-bugs x |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-20 21:27:25 | Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies |