On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 12:28, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:14 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 17:05, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 10:51 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This issue is present in all supported versions. I was able to
> > > > reproduce it using the steps recommended by Andres and Tomas's
> > > > scripts. I also conducted a small test through TAP tests to verify the
> > > > problem. Attached is the alternate_lock_HEAD.patch, which includes the
> > > > lock modification(Tomas's change) and the TAP test.
> > > >
> > >
> > > @@ -1568,7 +1568,7 @@ OpenTableList(List *tables)
> > > /* Allow query cancel in case this takes a long time */
> > > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
> > >
> > > - rel = table_openrv(t->relation, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
> > > + rel = table_openrv(t->relation, ShareRowExclusiveLock);
> > >
> > > The comment just above this code ("Open, share-lock, and check all the
> > > explicitly-specified relations") needs modification. It would be
> > > better to explain the reason of why we would need SRE lock here.
> >
> > Updated comments for the same.
> >
>
> The patch missed to use the ShareRowExclusiveLock for partitions, see
> attached. I haven't tested it but they should also face the same
> problem. Apart from that, I have changed the comments in a few places
> in the patch.
I could not hit the updated ShareRowExclusiveLock changes through the
partition table, instead I could verify it using the inheritance
table. Added a test for the same and also attaching the backbranch
patch.
Regards,
Vignesh
