On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:49 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Why two transactions? The reason is that in order for this to work, we
> make a catalog change (mark it detached), and commit so that all
> concurrent transactions can see the change. A second transaction waits
> for anybody who holds any lock on the partitioned table and grabs Access
> Exclusive on the partition (which now no one cares about, if they're
> looking at the partitioned table), where the DDL action on the partition
> can be completed.
Is there a more detailed theory of operation of this patch somewhere?
What exactly do you mean by marking it detached? Committing the change
makes it possible for all concurrent transactions to see the change,
but does not guarantee that they will. If you can't guarantee that,
then I'm not sure how you can guarantee that they will behave sanely.
Even if you can, it's not clear what the sane behavior is: what
happens when a tuple gets routed to an ex-partition? What happens when
an ex-partition needs to be scanned? What prevents problems if a
partition is detached, possibly modified, and then reattached,
possibly with different partition bounds?
I think the two-transaction approach is interesting and I can imagine
that it possibly solves some problems, but it's not clear to me
exactly which problems it solves or how it does so.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
