On 2026-Sep-25, Manu wrote: > Hi, > > shihao zhong <[email protected]> wrote: > > Done in v5. 0001 is Álvaro's version as one commit, with that comment > > added and a shorter commit message. 0002 fixes the decoding_ctx comment > > in copy_table_data(). > > I ran v5 through the same checks as v3, on master and on > REL_19_STABLE, where it applies cleanly.
Thanks! I have pushed this. I apologize for forgetting to list reviewers in the commit message :-( But I also failed to remember in time that doing CheckRelationOidLockedByMe() doesn't actually check anything, and that it needs to be used in conjunction with Assert(). I have pushed a fix for that and wrote the "Reviewed-by" trailers there. Anyway, regarding the patch, I changed some comments a little bit more. The only change of actual significance is that I revisited my earlier idea of not touching copy_table_data: I did change the lock acquisition into an assert, when in concurrent mode. This is what Antonin had suggested back in [1], and I thought would be "not very nice", but I think I was mistaken. [1] https://postgr.es/m/4324.1790317455@localhost Regarding the deadlock when a conflicting lock on the toast table is acquired during the initial steps, I'm not too worried about it; I think it's on the spirit of "play stupid games, win you-know-what-kind-of- prizes", and it hopefully won't be too bad in practice. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "No necesitamos banderas No reconocemos fronteras" (Jorge González)
