Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > As for lock upgrade, I wonder if the best way to handle this isn't to
> > hack the deadlock detector so that it causes any *other* process to die,
> > if they detect that they would block on REPACK. Arguably there's
> > nothing that you can do to a table while its undergoing REPACK
> > CONCURRENTLY; any alterations would have to wait until the repacking is
> > compelted. We can implement that idea simply enough, as shown in this
> > crude prototype. (I omitted the last three patches in the series, and
> > squashed my proposed changes into 0003, as announced in my previous
> > posting.)
If we take this approach, some comments on deadlock need to be adjusted - see
my proposals in nocfbot_comments_deadlock.diff.
Besides that, nocfbot_comment_cluster_rel.diff suggests one more comment
change that does not depend on the deadlock detection - I forgot to change it
when implementing the lock upgrade.
Also the commit message of 0003 needs to be adjusted. (Does it need to mention
the problem at all?)
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
