| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2018-04-07 20:19:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20180407201959.76zbie3m5ay6o3u5@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-04-06 09:41:07 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Won't the same question applies to the similar usage in
> >> EvalPlanQualFetch and heap_lock_updated_tuple_rec.
> >
> > I don't think so?
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > if (ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions(&hufd.ctid))
> > ereport(ERROR,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > errmsg("tuple to be locked was already moved to another partition due to concurrent update")));
> >
> >
>
> I was talking about the case when the tuple version is not visible aka
> the below code:
> I think if we return an error in EvalPlanQualFetch at the place
> mentioned above, the behavior will be sane.
I think you're right. I've adapted the code, added a bunch of tests.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-07 20:34:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-04-07 20:10:55 | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |