Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oviEm-0005KV-JG for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:59:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oviEk-0008WV-BF for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:59:38 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oviEj-0008WM-U7 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:59:37 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oviEd-0008TP-3M for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:59:36 +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 2AHGxIF21847849; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:59:18 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Gilles Darold cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: [BUG] pg_dump blocked In-reply-to: <45c93d57-9973-248e-d2df-e02ca9af48d4@darold.net> References: <45c93d57-9973-248e-d2df-e02ca9af48d4@darold.net> Comments: In-reply-to Gilles Darold message dated "Thu, 17 Nov 2022 17:43:38 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1847847.1668704358.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:59:18 -0500 Message-ID: <1847848.1668704358@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Gilles Darold writes: > I have an incorrect behavior with pg_dump prior PG version 15. With > PostgreSQL 15, thanks to commit e3fcbbd623b9ccc16cdbda374654d91a4727d173 > the problem is gone but for older versions it persists with locks on > partitioned tables. I didn't want to back-patch e3fcbbd62 at the time, but it's probably aged long enough now to be safe to back-patch. If we do anything here, it should be to back-patch the whole thing, else we've only partially fixed the issue. regards, tom lane