| From: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
| Date: | 2021-06-24 03:55:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAJcOf-eoUtVsRxAbKP=8wr=VPqGp942og7NBR2L1CL6NqBdpnA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:38 PM Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>
> How about walking the partition hierarchy bottom up, recording the parents but not taking the locks.
> Once top-most parent is found, take the locks in reverse order (top down) ?
>
Is it safe to walk up the partition hierarchy (to record the parents
for the eventual locking in reverse order) without taking locks?
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-06-24 04:19:47 | RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
| Previous Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-06-24 03:43:30 | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |