Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rrWLf-00165U-Ng for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 05:06:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rrWLd-004lK9-MF for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 05:06:14 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rrWLd-004lK1-D3 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 05:06:14 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rrWLa-00066c-UN for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 05:06:13 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 432566Hm1464386; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 01:06:06 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Justin Pryzby cc: Alexander Lakhin , Alvaro Herrera , Michael Paquier , Peter Eisentraut , Soumyadeep Chakraborty , Zhihong Yu , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Ashwin Agrawal , vanjared@vmware.com Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD on partitioned tables In-reply-to: References: <202403281558.xk5pgf7ur3dq@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Justin Pryzby message dated "Sun, 31 Mar 2024 06:11:02 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <1464384.1712034366.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 01:06:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1464385.1712034366@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Justin Pryzby writes: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 12:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote: >> I've stumbled upon a test failure caused by the test query added in tha= t >> commit: >> +ERROR:=C2=A0 deadlock detected >> +DETAIL:=C2=A0 Process 3076180 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 12= 59 of database 16386; blocked by process 3076181. >> +Process 3076181 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 2601 of database= 16386; blocked by process 3076180. > I think means that, although it was cute to use pg_am in the reproducer > given in the problem report, it's not a good choice to use here in the > sql regression tests. Another case here: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=3Dsevengill&dt=3D2= 024-04-02%2001%3A32%3A17 AFAICS, e2395cdbe posits that taking exclusive lock on pg_am in the middle of a bunch of concurrent regression scripts couldn't possibly cause any problems. Really? regards, tom lane