Horton

Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2018-08-28T19:30:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2018-Aug-28, Tom Lane wrote:

> ... just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...
> 
> Doesn't pg_backup_archiver.c's identify_locking_dependencies() need to
> treat POLICY and ROW SECURITY items as requiring exclusive lock on
> the referenced table?  Those commands definitely acquire
> AccessExclusiveLock in a quick test.
> 
> I haven't looked hard, but I'm suspicious that other recently-added
> dump object types may have been missed here too,

I hadn't come across this locking dependency before, so it's pretty
likely that partitioned index attachment has a problem here.

> and even more suspicious that we'll forget this again in future.

... yeah, it seems easy to overlook the need to edit this.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Make pg_restore's identify_locking_dependencies() more bulletproof.

  2. Code review for pg_dump's handling of ALTER INDEX ATTACH PARTITION.

  3. Fix missing dependency for pg_dump's ENABLE ROW LEVEL SECURITY items.