Re: BUG #15565: truncate bug with tables which have temp table inherited

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 05:46:28PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/12/25 17:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Nope, it doesn't.  heap_close ought to not normally release the lock
>> either until the transaction has committed.
> 
> Note that expand_inherited_rtentry does release the lock.
> 
>         /*
>          * It is possible that the parent table has children that are temp
>          * tables of other backends.  We cannot safely access such tables
>          * (because of buffering issues), and the best thing to do seems
>          * to be to silently ignore them.
>          */
>         if (childOID != parentOID && RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP(newrelation))
>         {
>             heap_close(newrelation, lockmode);
>             continue;
>         }

Oh, good point here.  Both David and you have been touching this area
of the code way more than myself lately.

>> The patch clobbers
>> something that truncate_check_activity() already checks, which is not
>> elegant.
> 
> Indeed, I missed truncate_check_activity.  Although, if we want to fix
> this behavior like I'm proposing (ignore child tables that are temporary
> tables of other sessions), it may not be such a good idea to do it by
> modifying truncate_check_activity to deal specially with such tables,
> because that would unnecessarily complicate its interface.

I got to think more about that point, and indeed I agree with your
point to complicate truncate_check_activity more than necessary as it
still gets used for CASCADE and parent relations, so what you are
proposing is acceptable to me.

>> I am wondering as well if we could take this occasion for
>> having better isolation testing when it comes to inheritance trees
>> mixing relation persistency.  At least for the TRUNCATE case it would
>> be nice to have something.
> 
> Yeah, perhaps.

Let's bite the bullet then.  Attached is a more advanced patch which
is based on what you previously sent, except that I don't like much
the fact of copying AccessExclusiveLock around, so let's save it into
a separate variable.  I hope that's clearer.  I have also designed a
set of isolation tests which adds more coverage for inheritance trees
mixing persistence across sessions which I also used to check the
patch.  This test suite could always be expanded later on, but I think
that's already a step in the good direction.

Thoughts?
--
Michael