On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:17:34PM +0800, 李杰(慎追) wrote:
> As we all know, CIC has three transactions. If we recursively in n partitioned tables,
> it will become 3N transactions. If an error occurs in these transactions, we have too many things to deal...
>
> If an error occurs when an index is created in one of the partitions,
> what should we do with our new index?
My (tentative) understanding is that these types of things should use a
"subtransaction" internally.. So if the toplevel transaction rolls back, its
changes are lost. In some cases, it might be desirable to not roll back, in
which case the user(client) should first create indexes (concurrently if
needed) on every child, and then later create index on parent (that has the
advtantage of working on older servers, too).
postgres=# SET client_min_messages=debug;
postgres=# CREATE INDEX ON t(i);
DEBUG: building index "t1_i_idx" on table "t1" with request for 1 parallel worker
DEBUG: index "t1_i_idx" can safely use deduplication
DEBUG: creating and filling new WAL file
DEBUG: done creating and filling new WAL file
DEBUG: creating and filling new WAL file
DEBUG: done creating and filling new WAL file
DEBUG: building index "t2_i_idx" on table "t2" with request for 1 parallel worker
^C2020-06-12 13:08:17.001 CDT [19291] ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
2020-06-12 13:08:17.001 CDT [19291] STATEMENT: CREATE INDEX ON t(i);
2020-06-12 13:08:17.001 CDT [27410] FATAL: terminating connection due to administrator command
2020-06-12 13:08:17.001 CDT [27410] STATEMENT: CREATE INDEX ON t(i);
Cancel request sent
If the index creation is interrupted at this point, no indexes will exist.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:06:28PM +0800, 李杰(慎追) wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 09:23:32AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I looked at CIC now and came up with the attached. All that's needed to allow
> > this case is to close the relation before recursing to partitions - it needs to
> > be closed before calling CommitTransactionCommand(). There's probably a better
> > way to write this, but I can't see that there's anything complicated about
> > handling partitioned tables.
>
> I'm so sorry about getting back late.
> Thank you very much for helping me consider this issue.
> I compiled the patch v1 you provided. And I patch v2-001 again to enter postgresql.
> I got a coredump that was easy to reproduce. As follows:
> I have been trying to get familiar with the source code of create index.
> Can you solve this bug first? I will try my best to implement CIC with you.
> Next, I will read your patchs v2-002 and v2-003.
Thanks, fixed.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:20:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> When it comes to test behaviors specific to partitioning, there are in
> my experience three things to be careful about and stress in the tests:
> - Use at least two layers of partitioning.
> - Include into the partition tree a partition that has no leaf
> partitions.
> - Test the commands on the top-most parent, a member in the middle of
> the partition tree, the partition with no leaves, and one leaf, making
> sure that relfilenode changes where it should and that partition trees
> remain intact (you can use pg_partition_tree() for that.)
Added, thanks for looking.
--
Justin
