> > The lock taken on the parent is either ShareUpdateExclusiveLock or > AccessExclusiveLock depending on whether CONCURRENTLY is specified or > not. Maybe that should be considered also when locking the children. > > I've updated the patch that way. (Also, reintroduced the slightly > longer commit message that I had added in v3. :)) >
Thanks Amit, for your work! I am little bit reluctant to the change you made in v5. As per https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/sql-altertable.html: > If CONCURRENTLY is specified, ... the second transaction acquires SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE on the partitioned table and ACCESS EXCLUSIVE on the partition, and the detach process completes. In comment to find_all_inheritors(): > The specified lock type is acquired on all child relations (but not on the given rel; caller should already have locked it) So I conclude that it is done in a right way in v3 with ACCESS_EXCLUSIVE lock. Also I'd recommend removing the link to a discussion from the test. Anyway we have link in a commit message. -- Report: https://postgr.es/m/OS3PR01MB5718DA1C4609A25186D1FBF194089%40OS3PR01MB5718.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com -- Best regards, Pavel Borisov Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>
