From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:11:46 -0400
Message-ID: <11450.1535483506@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21154.1535392691@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <19784.1535390902@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20180827173932.GY3326@tamriel.snowman.net>
<21154.1535392691@sss.pgh.pa.us>
... just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...
Doesn't pg_backup_archiver.c's identify_locking_dependencies() need to
treat POLICY and ROW SECURITY items as requiring exclusive lock on
the referenced table? Those commands definitely acquire
AccessExclusiveLock in a quick test.
I haven't looked hard, but I'm suspicious that other recently-added
dump object types may have been missed here too, and even more
suspicious that we'll forget this again in future. I wonder if we
shouldn't invert the logic, so that instead of a blacklist of object
types that we assume need exclusive lock, we keep a whitelist of
object types that are known not to (which might be just INDEX,
not sure). That way, we'd at least be failing in a safe direction.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities
In-Reply-To: <11450.1535483506@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox