Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
От
Andres Freund
Тема
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Дата
Msg-id
20180911162037.7nbfsr5gaaaramjg@alap3.anarazel.de
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
On 2018-09-11 12:18:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2018-09-11 12:03:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If the startup process has acquired enough AELs to approach locktable > >> full, any concurrent pg_dump has probably failed already, because it'd > >> be trying to share-lock every table and so would have a huge conflict > >> cross-section; it's hard to believe it wouldn't get cancelled pretty > >> early in that process. (Again, if you think this scenario is probable, > >> you have to explain the lack of field complaints.) > > > I was thinking of the other way round - there's a running pg_dump and > > then somebody does a bit of DDL (say a DROP SCHEMA CASCADE in a > > multi-tenant scenario). > > Doesn't matter: startup would hit a lock conflict and cancel the pg_dump > to get out of it, long before approaching locktable full. Only if all that's happening in the same database, which is far from a given. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления