From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2018-08-07 13:00:10 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+jK-XSyngkFz_fzXf9NP09wXsSDzK=KAO4RNduJyWCh7vQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 August 2018 at 13:47, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-08-08 00:40:12 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> 1. Obtain a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on the partitioned table rather
>> than an AccessExclusiveLock.
>> 2. Do all the normal partition attach partition validation.
>> 3. Insert pg_partition record with partvalid = true.
>> 4. Invalidate relcache entry for the partitioned table
>> 5. Any loops over a partitioned table's PartitionDesc must check
>> PartitionIsValid(). This will return true if the current snapshot
>> should see the partition or not. The partition is valid if partisvalid
>> = true and the xmin precedes or is equal to the current snapshot.
>
> How does this protect against other sessions actively using the relcache
> entry? Currently it is *NOT* safe to receive invalidations for
> e.g. partitioning contents afaics.
I think you may be right in the general case, but ISTM possible to
invalidate/refresh just the list of partitions.
If so, that idea would seem to require some new, as-yet not invented mechanism.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-08-07 13:12:11 | garbage variable in GNUmakefile.in |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-07 12:47:51 | Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |