From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities |
Date: | 2018-08-28 19:30:31 |
Message-ID: | 20180828193031.ahilzgnpkug6x45c@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Aug-28, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...
>
> Doesn't pg_backup_archiver.c's identify_locking_dependencies() need to
> treat POLICY and ROW SECURITY items as requiring exclusive lock on
> the referenced table? Those commands definitely acquire
> AccessExclusiveLock in a quick test.
>
> I haven't looked hard, but I'm suspicious that other recently-added
> dump object types may have been missed here too,
I hadn't come across this locking dependency before, so it's pretty
likely that partitioned index attachment has a problem here.
> and even more suspicious that we'll forget this again in future.
... yeah, it seems easy to overlook the need to edit this.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Asim R P | 2018-08-28 19:34:30 | Re: Catalog corruption |
Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2018-08-28 19:30:05 | Re: Dimension limit in contrib/cube (dump/restore hazard?) |