Re: Concurrent deadlock scenario with DROP INDEX on partitioned index

From: Jimmy Yih <jyih(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gaurab Dey <gaurabd(at)vmware(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Concurrent deadlock scenario with DROP INDEX on partitioned index
Date: 2022-03-21 22:57:11
Message-ID: DM6PR05MB64585166991EBC4AE6F2F43DBD169@DM6PR05MB6458.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hence, I propose the attached. 0001 is pure refactoring: it hopefully
> clears up the confusion about which "relkind" is which, and it also
> saves a couple of redundant syscache fetches in RemoveRelations.
> Then 0002 adds the actual bug fix as well as a test case that does
> deadlock with unpatched code.

The proposed patches look great and make much more sense. I see you've
already squashed and committed in
7b6ec86532c2ca585d671239bba867fe380448ed. Thanks!

--
Jimmy Yih (VMware)
Gaurab Dey (VMware)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Christensen 2022-03-21 23:01:02 Re: [PATCH] add relation and block-level filtering to pg_waldump
Previous Message Zhihong Yu 2022-03-21 22:13:18 Re: freeing bms explicitly