Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Date: 2020-08-03 23:51:44
Message-ID: 20200803235144.GA32443@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-Aug-03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> There was a lot of great discussion which ended up in Robert completing
> a much sought implementation of non-blocking ATTACH. DETACH was
> discussed too because it was a goal initially, but eventually dropped
> from that patch altogether. Nonetheless, that thread provided a lot of
> useful input to this implementation. Important ones:
>
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYg4x7AH=_QSptvuBKf+3hUdiCa4frPkt+RvXZyjX1n=w@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaAjkTibkEr=xJg3ndbRsHHSiYi2SJgX69MVosj=LJmug@mail.gmail.com
> [3] https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoY13KQZF-=HNTrt9UYWYx3_oYOQpu9ioNT49jGgiDpUEA@mail.gmail.com

There was some discussion about having a version number in the partition
descriptor somewhere as a means to implement this. I couldn't figure
out how that would work, or what the version number would be attached
to. Surely the idea wasn't to increment the version number to every
partition other than the one being detached?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-08-03 23:51:51 Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-08-03 23:48:54 ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY