Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180911162037.7nbfsr5gaaaramjg@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-09-11 12:18:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2018-09-11 12:03:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If the startup process has acquired enough AELs to approach locktable > >> full, any concurrent pg_dump has probably failed already, because it'd > >> be trying to share-lock every table and so would have a huge conflict > >> cross-section; it's hard to believe it wouldn't get cancelled pretty > >> early in that process. (Again, if you think this scenario is probable, > >> you have to explain the lack of field complaints.) > > > I was thinking of the other way round - there's a running pg_dump and > > then somebody does a bit of DDL (say a DROP SCHEMA CASCADE in a > > multi-tenant scenario). > > Doesn't matter: startup would hit a lock conflict and cancel the pg_dump > to get out of it, long before approaching locktable full. Only if all that's happening in the same database, which is far from a given. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: