Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:40:54 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Message-ID: <20210426124054.GA5464@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+HiwqFffDsManDTKRaBkg8Y2DkOFDKNe_Wudu_SSX67wuMm3Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210426124054.GA5464%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

Hello Amit,

On 2021-Apr-26, Amit Langote wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 8:31 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

> > I haven't added a mechanism to verify this; but with asserts on, this
> > patch will crash if you have more than one.  I think the behavior is not
> > necessarily sane with asserts off, since you'll get an arbitrary
> > detach-Xmin assigned to the partdesc, depending on catalog scan order.
> 
> Maybe this is an ignorant question but is the plan to add an elog() in
> this code path or a check (and an ereport()) somewhere in
> ATExecDetachPartition() to prevent more than one partition ending up
> in detach-pending state?

Yeah, that's what I'm planning to do.

> Please allow me to study the patch a bit more closely and get back tomorrow.

Sure, thanks!

-- 
Álvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile
"But static content is just dynamic content that isn't moving!"
                http://smylers.hates-software.com/2007/08/15/fe244d0c.html