| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2026-04-14 13:58:55 |
| Message-ID: | aixbxaenmbvsaarnxpagkgajv25zpc4ogo6gwv7lr7bbrh3arp@xom2lyvdgccf |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2026-04-14 15:37:56 +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > On 2026-04-12 15:31:20 +0200, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:
> > > Instead of cancelling the backend entered the deadlock detector - it
> > > cancel some another (nearest hard edge) until it is possible to get the
> > > lock (either by
> > > reordering or directly).
> >
> > I don't think that's as good. The problem is that that way you're only
> > detecting the deadlocks once they have materialized (i.e. once repack actually
> > does the lock upgrade), rather than cancelling when we know that the problem
> > starts.
>
> This is my hack that tries to do that.
I still think this needs to be in the deadlock detector. The lock cycle just
needs to be a bit more complicated for a hack in JoinWaitQueue not to work.
There's no guarantee that the wait that triggers the deadlock is actually on
the relation being repacked.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | SCHOEMANS Maxime | 2026-04-14 14:03:07 | Re: Implement missing join selectivity estimation for range types |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2026-04-14 13:37:56 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |