| From: | Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2026-04-09 09:11:16 |
| Message-ID: | CADzfLwX78LmnZ6ZE3oSwuyw98WqY8g2HLHrSRRUBcgVQhMW=2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 10:43 AM Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> This approach LGTM when it comes to concurrent DDLs. However, consider REPACK
> holding ShareUpdateExclusiveLock (SUEL) and VACUUM (w/o VACOPT_SKIP_LOCKED)
> waiting for the same lock. Once REPACK releases its SUEL, VACUUM gets it and
> processes the table, then REPACK finally gets AccessExclusiveLock (AEL) and
> finishes too.
> One more thing we may prevent from sneaking into that hole is a
> VACUUM. It will not break anything, but will be huge waste of time and
> resources.
I thought about that too, I think we may just add some kind of
CheckTableNotInUse in VACUUM after getting the SUEL.
Mikhail.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-04-09 09:21:21 | Re: meson: Make test output much more useful on failure (both in CI and locally) |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2026-04-09 08:43:14 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |