| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap lock levels for REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY not quite right? |
| Date: | 2019-05-07 22:45:36 |
| Message-ID: | 14795.1557269136@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-07 12:25:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Then session 2 deadlocks while session 3 finishes correctly. I don't
>> know if this is a class of problems we'd want to address for v12, but
>> if we do then CIC (and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?) could benefit from
>> it.
> This seems like a pre-existing issue to me. We probably should improve
> that, but I don't think it has to be tied to 12.
Yeah. CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY has always had a deadlock hazard,
so it's hardly surprising that REINDEX CONCURRENTLY does too.
I don't think that fixing that is in-scope for v12, even if we had
an idea how to do it, which we don't.
We do need to fix the wrong-lock-level problem of course, but
that seems straightforward.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-05-07 22:51:48 | Re: New EXPLAIN option: ALL |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2019-05-07 22:39:01 | Re: New EXPLAIN option: ALL |