Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29306.1536682739@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> 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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: