Custom reloptions and lock modes
| От | Michael Paquier |
|---|---|
| Тема | Custom reloptions and lock modes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20190920013831.GD1844@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответы |
Re: Custom reloptions and lock modes
Re: Custom reloptions and lock modes |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi all, This is a new thread related to the bug analyzed here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190919083203.GC21144@paquier.xyz And in short, if you attempt to do an ALTER TABLE with a custom reloptions the command burns itself, like that for example this sequence: create extension bloom; create table aa (a int); create index aa_bloom ON aa USING bloom (a); alter index aa_bloom set (length = 20); Which results in the following error: ERROR: XX000: unrecognized lock mode: 2139062143 LOCATION: LockAcquireExtended, lock.c:756 The root of the problem is that the set of relation options loaded finds properly the custom options set when looking for the lock mode to use in AlterTableGetRelOptionsLockLevel(), but we never set the lock mode this option should use when allocating it, resulting in a failure. The current set of APIs does not allow either to set the lock mode associated with a custom reloption. Hence attached is a patch set to address those issues: - 0001 makes sure that any existing module creating a custom reloption has the lock mode set to AccessExclusiveMode, which would be a sane default anyway. I think that we should just back-patch that and close any holes. - 0002 is a patch which we could use to extend the existing reloption APIs to set the lock mode used. I am aware of the recent work done by Nikolay in CC to rework this API set, but I am unsure where we are going there, and the resulting patch is actually very short, being 20-line long with the current infrastructure. That could go into HEAD. Table AMs have been added in v12 so custom reloptions could gain more in popularity, but as we are very close to the release it would not be cool to break those APIs. The patch simplicity could also be a reason sufficient for a back-patch, and I don't think that there are many users of them yet. My take would be to use 0001 on all branches (or I am missing something related to custom relopts manipulation?), and consider 0002 on HEAD. Thoughts? -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: