Re: Isn't partition drop code seriously at risk of deadlock? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: Isn't partition drop code seriously at risk of deadlock?
Date
Msg-id d52e8cc7-b3e3-8d57-1ca6-e90a18003df2@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Isn't partition drop code seriously at risk of deadlock?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017/11/28 9:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> The complaint in bug #14927 that heap_drop_with_catalog is not bothering
> to check for SearchSysCache lookup failure (in code evidently newly added
> for the partition feature) seems to me to be only scratching the surface
> of what's wrong with that code.  In particular, I do not understand how
> it can possibly be deadlock-free to be trying to grab AccessExclusiveLock
> on a partition's parent table when we already have such a lock on the
> partition.  Which we do, or at least had better, long before we get to
> heap_drop_with_catalog.

We do that as of 258cef12540fa1 [1].  The lock on the parent is taken in
RangeVarCallbackForDropRelation() before the partition itself is locked.

Thanks,
Amit

[1]
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=258cef12540fa1



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Timeline ID in backup_label file
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers