Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Date
Msg-id 29306.1536682739@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-09-11 12:03:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If the startup process has acquired enough AELs to approach locktable
>> full, any concurrent pg_dump has probably failed already, because it'd
>> be trying to share-lock every table and so would have a huge conflict
>> cross-section; it's hard to believe it wouldn't get cancelled pretty
>> early in that process.  (Again, if you think this scenario is probable,
>> you have to explain the lack of field complaints.)

> I was thinking of the other way round - there's a running pg_dump and
> then somebody does a bit of DDL (say a DROP SCHEMA CASCADE in a
> multi-tenant scenario).

Doesn't matter: startup would hit a lock conflict and cancel the pg_dump
to get out of it, long before approaching locktable full.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily