Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANP8+j+NfR+h-ZxhzHZ-bVKv6WZdqDLyUBW0hSFzRcQyWVC1QQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3 May 2016 at 18:07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
--
Or at least, it did until Simon decided that ALTER TABLE RESET
doesn't require AccessExclusiveLock.
On reflection, this still seems like a good idea.
Now you get a failure.
Failure condition as an exception to that.
I haven't tried to construct a pre-9.1 database that would trigger
this, but you can make it happen by applying the attached patch
to create a toast-table-less table in the regression tests,
and then doing "make check" in src/bin/pg_upgrade. You get this:
...
Restoring database schemas in the new cluster
ok
Creating newly-required TOAST tables SQL command failed
ALTER TABLE "public"."i_once_had_a_toast_table" RESET (binary_upgrade_dummy_option);
ERROR: AccessExclusiveLock required to add toast table.
Failure, exiting
It appears that pg_upgrade is depending upon an undocumented side-effect of ALTER TABLE RESET.
I would say this side-effect should not exist, which IIUC is the same conclusion on your latest post.
If pg_upgrade needs this, we should implement a specific function that does what pg_upgrade needs. That way we can isolate the requirement for an AccessExclusiveLock to the place that needs it: pg_upgrade. That will also make it less fragile in the future. I don't think that needs a specific command, just a function.
I accept that it is my bug and should fix it.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: