| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 李杰(慎追) <adger(dot)lj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, 曾文旌(义从) <wenjing(dot)zwj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |
| Date: | 2022-04-13 21:11:28 |
| Message-ID: | Ylc8gFvm6eWnsHEh@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 05:52:14AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Are you sure? The ownership re-check in cluster_rel() occurs after acquiring
> locks.
Yep, you are right. However, the SQL test does not check for this
blocking scenario. In short, removing the new ACL check in
get_tables_to_cluster_partitioned() makes the test behave the same
way. Could you implement an isolation check to make sure that the
difference is visible? The SQL check looks useful in itself, either
way.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chap | 2022-04-13 21:15:23 | Re: timezones BCE |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-04-13 20:56:22 | Re: typos |