| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andrey Klychkov <aaklychkov(at)mail(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alter index rename concurrently to |
| Date: | 2018-10-25 07:41:13 |
| Message-ID: | 87683f04-d63f-5bb4-793f-2be883b6e577@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/10/2018 23:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 13/10/2018 04:01, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I don't see how this could be argued. It has to be a self-conflicting
>> lockmode, otherwise you'd end up doing renames of tables where you
>> cannot see the previous state. And you'd get weird errors about updating
>> invisible rows etc.
>
>> I don't buy this description. Imo it's a fundamental correctness
>> thing. Without it concurrent DDL would potentially overwrite the rename,
>> because they could start updating while still seeing the old version.
>
> OK, I can refine those descriptions/comments. Do you have any concerns
> about the underlying principle of this patch?
Patch with updated comments to reflect your input.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Lower-lock-level-for-renaming-indexes.patch | text/plain | 10.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2018-10-25 07:42:05 | Re: Pull up sublink of type 'NOT NOT (expr)' |
| Previous Message | MyungKyu LIM | 2018-10-25 07:28:13 | RE: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column to pg_stat_replication |