Re: Concurrent deadlock scenario with DROP INDEX on partitioned index - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jimmy Yih
Subject Re: Concurrent deadlock scenario with DROP INDEX on partitioned index
Date
Msg-id DM6PR05MB64585166991EBC4AE6F2F43DBD169@DM6PR05MB6458.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Concurrent deadlock scenario with DROP INDEX on partitioned index  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hence, I propose the attached.  0001 is pure refactoring: it hopefully
> clears up the confusion about which "relkind" is which, and it also
> saves a couple of redundant syscache fetches in RemoveRelations.
> Then 0002 adds the actual bug fix as well as a test case that does
> deadlock with unpatched code.

The proposed patches look great and make much more sense. I see you've
already squashed and committed in
7b6ec86532c2ca585d671239bba867fe380448ed. Thanks!

--
Jimmy Yih (VMware)
Gaurab Dey (VMware)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zhihong Yu
Date:
Subject: Re: freeing bms explicitly
Next
From: David Christensen
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add relation and block-level filtering to pg_waldump