agora inbox for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 19:44:52 +0200
Message-ID: <68264.1776707092@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADzfLwVf-3mjMwSTOcj9djNzGd-UjBOYbFjxgXRhtKuH_4rajA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <gebmxzovxumuflknpua4r52tmuiam2odies2qlchzcl36cvphc@iz6bkpk64amp>
<CADzfLwUed3gmARGbHnsDbrXsqPRW0b0VUtZxi5iNJj0LTC2fJA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1JDd9HBOtR5pgAptcQHpUyXROMe5jqBbLGBRBqn+rCYCg@mail.gmail.com>
<9539.1775724194@localhost>
<fpr4nsmyy3mpfrm2mijspr44dgol2cjeke5tyznb4btsznxsgx@iifdbfe2wl63>
<CADzfLwURKVNQ++Dpi7bjoGfj-8pchDQEVex3eWBx0NCYn6TbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<rr2hcc5c7cm3xpbi2bniduhvq7pko4fnmykdui2wns2pvowk4n@nod4copoefzs>
<112208.1776173876@localhost>
<aixbxaenmbvsaarnxpagkgajv25zpc4ogo6gwv7lr7bbrh3arp@xom2lyvdgccf>
<25514.1776264611@localhost>
<ikqtl3utsa3er2mfz2oyjv5ofjmlxfhtkolwh5fyfotsmykhqx@rnm3d7e46tjb>
<38385.1776277704@localhost>
<CADzfLwUOnargQe+rpTC5tFUOj+yNj01qJM42PAgi2CiMpZn3tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADzfLwUSnGnkfLwCWHQ=VVuAY1YTo+0Lr7pb+OPWUZbcYKSRUw@mail.gmail.com>
<44458.1776540188@localhost>
<CADzfLwVf-3mjMwSTOcj9djNzGd-UjBOYbFjxgXRhtKuH_4rajA@mail.gmail.com>
Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've briefly looked at your patch. As I understand it, it cancels the other
> process only when REPACK actually tries to upgrade the lock. ...
>
> AFAIU, Andres's concern is that the "victim" should be cancelled
> sooner, rather than waiting until REPACK actually attempts the
> upgrade.
I thought the point is that the deadlock should be resolved in a controlled
way, i.e. w/o relying on deadlock timeout. Once both processes sleep, the
decision which one should be kicked off is effectively random. In other words,
the actual deadlock IMO starts exactly at the moment both processes end up
sleeping. But I may be wrong.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
view thread (416+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <68264.1776707092@localhost>
Permalink: ../68264.1776707092@localhost/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/68264.1776707092@localhost
reply
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: ah@cybertec.at, mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, srinath2133@gmail.com, boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, rob@xzilla.net
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
In-Reply-To: <68264.1776707092@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox