On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:57 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I agree that any deadlock would have to involve somebody doing something
> quite odd --- not just one partition-oriented operation, but something
> taking multiple strong locks without regard to the partition structure.
> So I don't see a problem with taking that risk; people doing that sort
> of thing are probably at risk of deadlocks no matter what we do here.
OK.
> Looking at the patch itself, I agree that a bit more attention to comments
> is needed, and I wonder whether David has found all the places where
> it's now necessary to s/NoLock/RowExclusiveLock/. I don't have any
> other objections.
I spent some time thinking about that exact issue this morning and
studying the code to try to figure that out. I wasn't able to find
any other places that seemed to need updating, but it could be that I
missed something that David also missed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company