| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexey Ermakov <alexey(dot)ermakov(at)dataegret(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently |
| Date: | 2021-11-09 04:37:58 |
| Message-ID: | B706E617-2172-4460-845A-B76E5DB2E0A2@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On November 8, 2021 7:56:24 PM PST, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:36:41PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> One possible way to fix this would be to make ReindexRelationConcurrently()
>> acquire a lock on the underlying table when reindexing a toast table. Another
>> to not release the lock in toast_save_datum().
>
>The latter is more future-proof. Does it have material disadvantages?
I don't immediately see any. But I've been long of the opinion, and had plenty discussions around it, that our habit of releasing locks early is far too widely used.
I do however wonder if there's other path to the problem, besides saving toast datums. We also release those locks early in other places, and while e.g. r/o locks won't cause a problem with this specific interlock, it could cause problem around dropping the relation, for example.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2021-11-09 04:57:21 | BUG #17276: pg_tblspc Permission denied |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2021-11-09 03:56:24 | Re: BUG #17268: Possible corruption in toast index after reindex index concurrently |