| From: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Do not lock tables in get_tables_to_repack |
| Date: | 2026-07-08 02:36:38 |
| Message-ID: | tencent_39EA60C72E2394B930B416286544061F8F05@qq.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Hi hackers,
> >
> > When doing a whole database repack, we build a list of repackable
> > tables and take a lock on them to prevent concurrent drops. But
> > concurrent drops can always happen after we build the list because
> > we process each table in a separate transaction.
>
> Not only that. We have actually three ways to obtain the list of tables
> to repack, and only one of these obtains the locks. So this code is
> internally inconsistent. I agree that we should do something like your
> patch. I wanted to be a little more defensive though; how about the
> attached?
- classtup = SearchSysCache1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(index->indrelid));
+ classtup = SearchSysCacheCopy1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(index->indrelid));
Do we really need to copy it? We hold a refcount on it so it won't be freed
until we release it. Otherwise LGTM.
--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-07-08 03:21:32 | Re: pg_recvlogical: send final feedback on SIGINT/SIGTERM exit |
| Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2026-07-08 02:26:10 | Re: pgsql: Cleanup comments/docs around the new shmem request callbacks |