Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE ofpartition key
От | amul sul |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE ofpartition key |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAJ_b979HzZi6xtJKDYjxgN8Fwp99e_CRO=ZxFeR_-LWtY-fFQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE ofpartition key (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE ofpartition key
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> > [...] >>> >>> Questions: >>> >>> - I'm not perfectly happy with >>> "tuple to be locked was already moved to another partition due to concurrent update" >>> as the error message. If somebody has a better suggestions. >>> >> >> I don't have any better suggestion, but I have noticed a small >> inconsistency in the message. In case of delete, the message is >> "tuple to be updated was ...". I think here it should be "tuple to be >> deleted was ...". >> > > +1, will do the error message change in ExecDelete. > >>> - should heap_get_latest_tid() error out when the chain ends in a moved >>> tuple? >> >> Won't the same question applies to the similar usage in >> EvalPlanQualFetch and heap_lock_updated_tuple_rec. In >> EvalPlanQualFetch, we consider such a tuple to be deleted and will >> silently miss/skip it which seems contradictory to the places where we >> have detected such a situation and raised an error. In >> heap_lock_updated_tuple_rec, we will skip locking the versions of a >> tuple after we encounter a tuple version that is moved to another >> partition. >> >>> - I'm not that happy with the number of added spec test files with >>> number postfixes. Can't we combine them into a single file? >> >> +1 for doing so. > > Agree, we could combine specs-1/2/3 into a single file which is doing the error > check and for the specs-4/5, imho, let it be, as it is checking different the > scenario of ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on the moved tuple and also > it resembles the existing ON CONFLICT isolation tests. > > Will post rebase version of Andres' patch[1] including aforementioned > changes within an hour, thanks > > > 1] https://postgr.es/m/20180405014439.fbezvbjrmcw64vjc@alap3.anarazel.de > Updated patch attached. Regards, Amul
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: