From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2018-11-06 18:54:35 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+jL_kBdNvhrnDcYkyjp+ADf4FxHPvd8bv1k1AenihX5NFw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 10:10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> With this
> approach, already-running queries won't take into account the fact
> that new partitions have been added, but that seems at least tolerable
> and perhaps desirable.
>
Desirable, imho. No data added after a query starts would be visible.
> If the
> COPY isn't trying to send any tuples to the now-detached partition,
> then it's fine, but if it is, then I have trouble seeing any behavior
> other than an error as sane, unless perhaps a new partition has been
> attached or created for that part of the key space.
>
Error in the COPY or in the DDL? COPY preferred. Somebody with insert
rights shouldn't be able to prevent a table-owner level action. People
normally drop partitions to save space, so it could be annoying if that was
interrupted.
Supporting parallel query shouldn't make other cases more difficult from a
behavioral perspective just to avoid the ERROR. The ERROR sounds annoying,
but not sure how annoying avoiding it would be.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2018-11-06 18:56:17 | Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-06 18:52:55 | Re: backend crash on DELETE, reproducible locally |