Hi Pavel, On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:02 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.e...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.
Oops, you're right. I had failed to notice when reading the code that the second transaction takes an AccessExclusiveLock on the target partition. Reverted back to how this was in v3. > 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 Yeah, maybe the link is unnecessary in the test comment, so removed. Though, I do occasionally see one of those in the test files (try `git grep https src/test`). Thanks again. -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v6-0001-Invalidate-partitions-of-table-being-attached-det.patch
Description: Binary data
