Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]

public inbox for [email protected]  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Mihail Nikalayeu <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>
Cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Pg Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 10:13:26 -0400
Message-ID: <zefg3dww5q5iayo46mdiqgsewtwx3qv3jp2utzj5ucxdc7isvu@3q7szybdkmdx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADzfLwUed3gmARGbHnsDbrXsqPRW0b0VUtZxi5iNJj0LTC2fJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADzfLwWFr9h_+cbSQvPpdxgLbVL5wwxFRx21ezNvLYgJM=FVCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<4n4q3preb3lgyhpzstebhux7b2aojhsw7gik4ivaznyggiezrs@lrznutssxlh2>
	<CAA4eK1JDrk9xiALd4DHnGLOkGDbObM59SXSBJyj0_1bNYbr5ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<gebmxzovxumuflknpua4r52tmuiam2odies2qlchzcl36cvphc@iz6bkpk64amp>
	<CADzfLwUed3gmARGbHnsDbrXsqPRW0b0VUtZxi5iNJj0LTC2fJA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 2026-04-09 01:36:00 +0200, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:
> Hello, Andres!
> 
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 7:22 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't think this is a viable path.  You need to prevent any further lock
> > acquisitions on the relation to be able to swap it, not just conflicting DDL.
> 
> AFAIU, Amit's main idea is that we currently upgrade the lock instead
> of **releasing and re-acquiring** it because we fear DDL between those
> actions.

I got that, I just don't think it's going to work in any sort of way
reasonably well.

The fix here should be to make the system understand how to make lock upgrades
as safe as possible, not to hack around the corners.  For that you need to
teach the deadlock detector about all of this properly.


> > I don't think CheckTableNotInUse() would work anyway - don't we already hold
> > locks by the point we call it?
> 
> Yes, the DDL session already holds locks by the time
> CheckTableNotInUse is called - but is that really the problem? They
> will be released on error.

There's no guarantee they get there if it's done after the lock
acquisition. It can be part of a more complicated lock cycle.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
  In-Reply-To: <zefg3dww5q5iayo46mdiqgsewtwx3qv3jp2utzj5ucxdc7isvu@3q7szybdkmdx>

* 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