| 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: | 2022-04-26 05:17:11 |
| Message-ID: | YmeAV6gG/7Xqhiba@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 08:58:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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?
This was the last reason why this was listed as an open item, so,
hearing nothing, I have applied this patch to add those extra tests,
and switched the item as fixed.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-04-26 05:24:02 | Re: Making JIT more granular |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-04-26 05:13:31 | Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |