| From: | Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2026-04-15 15:54:12 |
| Message-ID: | CADzfLwWz8CfqrBUmTRGT1Mme60KrFrEoDOBoyFZG47hJk3vAmQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello!
On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 4:50 PM Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> The approach proposed by Mihail [1] seems the least problematic to me, and
> something like that occurred to me when I thought about the problem the first
> time. However, when we wake up the other processes in order to run the
> deadlock detection, they should do that immediately. I've got no good idea
> about implementation at the moment, since latch can be set for unrelated
> reasons. (Besides that, I have some more questions about this patch, which I
> can post separately.)
It is already possible to "deadlock" ANOTHER backend while running the
deadlock check [0].
Supported in current infra, just not used at the moment (my POC used that also).
[0]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c#L1870-L1873
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-04-15 16:04:12 | Re: Add errdetail() with PID and UID about source of termination signal |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-04-15 15:26:18 | Re: Add errdetail() with PID and UID about source of termination signal |