| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, MBeena Emerson <mbeena(dot)emerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |
| Date: | 2020-08-25 18:21:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobtaxTGFNLfFQFk5j20nSH_BsZh4rQwy-jt90qK4PQGoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 8:17 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> + <note>
> + <para>
> + While performing surgery on a damaged relation, we must not be doing anything
> + else on that relation in parallel. This is to ensure that when we are
> + operating on a damaged tuple there is no other transaction trying to modify
> + that tuple.
> + </para>
> + </note>
>
> If we prefer to avoid concurrent operations on the target relation why
> don't we use AccessExclusiveLock?
I disagree with the content of the note. It's up to the user whether
to perform any concurrent operations on the target relation, and in
many cases it would be fine to do so. Users who can afford to take the
table off-line to repair the problem don't really need this tool in
the first place.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-25 18:22:28 | Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-08-25 18:17:12 | Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument |