On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 19:50, Tender Wang wrote:
>
> David Rowley 于2025年3月24日周一 05:28写道：
>> This is no longer true in master, so if we do something here it's only
>> v17 and earlier.
>
> In the case of [1], we still have AccessShareLock on entity_2, even though it
> is pruned during initial part
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 22:19, Tender Wang wrote:
>> Maybe I was wrong about writing nothing in master's docs. It might
>> still be important to detail this. I don't know the best way to phrase
>> that, but maybe something along the lines of: "The query planner
>> obtains locks for all partitions w
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 12:19, David Rowley wrote:
> I'll push these in the next few days unless anyone else wants to voice
> their opinions.
Thanks for the review. Pushed.
David
Over in [1], there was some uncertainty about whether locking an
unrelated partition was expected behaviour or not for the particular
use-case which used a generic plan to scan a partitioned table and all
of the partitions.
I noticed that we don't mention this in the docs and though that
perhaps w
David Rowley 于2025年3月24日周一 16:50写道：
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 19:50, Tender Wang wrote:
> >
> > David Rowley 于2025年3月24日周一 05:28写道：
> >> This is no longer true in master, so if we do something here it's only
> >> v17 and earlier.
> >
> > In the case of [1], we still have AccessShareLock on entit
David Rowley 于2025年3月24日周一 05:28写道：
> Over in [1], there was some uncertainty about whether locking an
> unrelated partition was expected behaviour or not for the particular
> use-case which used a generic plan to scan a partitioned table and all
> of the partitions.
>
> I noticed that we don't m
