| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Ashwin Agrawal <ashwinstar(at)gmail(dot)com>, vanjared(at)vmware(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD on partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2024-04-02 05:06:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1464385.1712034366@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 12:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> I've stumbled upon a test failure caused by the test query added in that
>> commit:
>> +ERROR: deadlock detected
>> +DETAIL: Process 3076180 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 1259 of database 16386; blocked by process 3076181.
>> +Process 3076181 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 2601 of database 16386; blocked by process 3076180.
> I think means that, although it was cute to use pg_am in the reproducer
> given in the problem report, it's not a good choice to use here in the
> sql regression tests.
Another case here:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=sevengill&dt=2024-04-02%2001%3A32%3A17
AFAICS, e2395cdbe posits that taking exclusive lock on pg_am in the
middle of a bunch of concurrent regression scripts couldn't possibly
cause any problems. Really?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-04-02 05:19:11 | Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-04-02 04:56:53 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |