On 2012-12-12 12:13:44 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2012-12-11 22:20:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de> writes:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >> One problem I see is that while exporting a snapshot solves the
> > >> visibility issues of the table's contents it does not protect against
> > >> schema changes. I am not sure whether thats a problem.
> > >>
> > >> If somebody runs a CLUSTER or something like that, the table's contents
> > >> will be preserved including MVCC semantics. That's fine.
> > >> The more problematic cases I see are TRUNCATE, DROP and ALTER
> > >> TABLE.
> >
> > > This is why the pg_dump master process executes a
> > > lock table <table> in access share mode
> > > for every table, so your commands would all block.
> >
> > A lock doesn't protect against schema changes made before the lock was
> > taken. The reason that the described scenario is problematic is that
> > pg_dump is going to be expected to work against a snapshot made before
> > it gets a chance to take those table locks. Thus, there's a window
> > where DDL is dangerous, and will invalidate the dump --- perhaps without
> > any warning.
> > Now, we have this problem today, in that pg_dump has to read pg_class
> > before it can take table locks so some window exists already.
>
> > What's
> > bothering me about what Andres describes is that the window for trouble
> > seems to be getting much bigger.
>
> This morning I wondered whether we couldn't protect against that by
> acquiring share locks on the catalog rows pg_dump reads, that would
> result in "could not serialize access due to concurrent update" type of
> errors which would be easy enough discernible/translateable.
> While pretty damn ugly that should take care of most of those issues,
> shouldn't it?
After a quick look it doesn't look too hard to add this, does anybody
have an opinion whether its something worthwile? And possibly a suggest
option name? I can't come up with something better than --recheck-locks
or something, but thats awful.
I don't think there's too much point in locking anything but pg_class,
pg_attribute, pg_type nearly everything else is read using a mvcc
snapshot anyway or isn't all that critical. Other candidates?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
