Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails
От | Tender Wang |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHewXNko_dibtzFYR7H-rRe-Fii3TiPVvdeu-GTzBN8oOMBsfQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails (Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> 于2024年10月28日周一 17:16写道:
On 2024-Oct-27, Tender Wang wrote:
> BTW, while reviewing the v2 patch, I found the parentConTup in
> foreach(cell, fks) block
> didn't need it anymore. We can remove the related codes.
True. Done so in this v3.
I noticed another problem here: we're grabbing the wrong lock type on
the referenced rel (AccessShareLock) during detach. (What's more: we
release it afterwards, which is the wrong thing to do. We need to keep
such locks until end of transaction). I didn't try to construct a case
where this would be a problem, but if I change AccessShare to NoLock,
the assertion that says we don't hold _any_ lock on that relation fires,
which means that we're not taking any locks on those rels before this
point. So this lock strength choice is definitely wrong. I changed it
to ShareRowExclusive, which is what we're suppose to use when adding a
trigger.
In CloneFKReferencing(), the constrForm->confrelid uses the same lock type.
I think you're right. I don't find any other problem.
Thanks,
Tender Wang
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: