| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, 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: | 2022-04-16 11:58:50 |
| Message-ID: | YlqveniXn9AI6RFZ@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:37:06PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thanks for the patch -- I have pushed it now, with some wording changes
> and renaming the role to regress_* to avoid buildfarm's ire.
Cool, thanks.
> Michaël in addition proposes an isolation test. I'm not sure; is it
> worth the additional test run time? It doesn't seem a critical issue.
> But if anybody feels like contributing one, step right ahead.
Well, I am a bit annoyed that we don't actually check that a CLUSTER
command does not block when doing a CLUSTER on a partitioned table
while a lock is held on one of its partitions. So, attached is a
proposal of patch to improve the test coverage in this area. While on
it, I have added a test with a normal table. You can see the
difference once you remove the ACL check added recently in
get_tables_to_cluster_partitioned(). What do you think?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Add-isolation-tests-for-CLUSTER-with-partitions.patch | text/x-diff | 7.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-04-16 12:29:20 | Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("tabstat->trans == trans", File: "pgstat_relation.c", Line: 508 |
| Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2022-04-16 07:37:55 | TRAP: FailedAssertion("tabstat->trans == trans", File: "pgstat_relation.c", Line: 508 |