Re: [HACKERS] ADD FOREIGN KEY locking

2015-02-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, James Sewell james.sew...@lisasoft.com
wrote:

 I've just noticed something in the Commit fest post
 - Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL


This reduces the lock taken for ADD FOREIGN KEY to ShareRowExclusiveLock,
authorizing SELECT and SELECT FOR [SHARE | UPDATE ... ].


 Perhaps I just need to be more patient.


Yup.
-- 
Michael


[HACKERS] ADD FOREIGN KEY locking

2015-02-17 Thread James Sewell
Hello all,

When I add a FK with a statement like this:

ALTER TABLE a ADD FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES b(id);

I see a lock on table b:

select locktype,mode,granted from pg_locks, pg_stat_activity where
relation::regclass::text = 'b' AND pg_locks.pid = pg_stat_activity.pid;

locktype | relation
mode | AccessShareLock
granted  | t
query | SOME LONG RUNNING QUERY WHICH SELECTS FROM b

locktype | relation
mode | AccessExclusiveLock
granted  | f
query | ALTER TABLE a ADD FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES b(id);


This means that my add key won't complete until my long running query does.
That seems a bit odd to me? In this database there are lots of
datawarehouse type queries running, which makes it a bit hard for me to
schedule this operation.

Is this just a manifestation of adding the key being in an ALTER TABLE,
which always needs an AccessExclusiveLock? Or am I missing some edge case
when this lock would be required in this circumstance?

No real urgency on this question, I just found it a bit strange and thought
someone might be able to shed some light.

James Sewell,
Solutions Architect
__


 Level 2, 50 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000

*P *(+61) 3 8370 8000  *W* www.lisasoft.com  *F *(+61) 3 8370 8099

-- 


--
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or 
professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this 
email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this 
communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or 
otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your 
incorrect receipt of this correspondence.


Re: [HACKERS] ADD FOREIGN KEY locking

2015-02-17 Thread James Sewell
Oh,

I've just noticed something in the Commit fest post

- Reducing lock strength of trigger and foreign key DDL

Perhaps I just need to be more patient.

Cheers,


James Sewell,
 Solutions Architect
__


 Level 2, 50 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000

*P *(+61) 3 8370 8000  *W* www.lisasoft.com  *F *(+61) 3 8370 8099


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:57 AM, James Sewell james.sew...@lisasoft.com
wrote:

 Hello all,

 When I add a FK with a statement like this:

 ALTER TABLE a ADD FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES b(id);

 I see a lock on table b:

 select locktype,mode,granted from pg_locks, pg_stat_activity where
 relation::regclass::text = 'b' AND pg_locks.pid = pg_stat_activity.pid;

 locktype | relation
 mode | AccessShareLock
 granted  | t
 query | SOME LONG RUNNING QUERY WHICH SELECTS FROM b

 locktype | relation
 mode | AccessExclusiveLock
 granted  | f
 query | ALTER TABLE a ADD FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES b(id);


 This means that my add key won't complete until my long running query
 does. That seems a bit odd to me? In this database there are lots of
 datawarehouse type queries running, which makes it a bit hard for me to
 schedule this operation.

 Is this just a manifestation of adding the key being in an ALTER TABLE,
 which always needs an AccessExclusiveLock? Or am I missing some edge case
 when this lock would be required in this circumstance?

 No real urgency on this question, I just found it a bit strange and
 thought someone might be able to shed some light.

 James Sewell,
 Solutions Architect
 __


  Level 2, 50 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000

 *P *(+61) 3 8370 8000  *W* www.lisasoft.com  *F *(+61) 3 8370 8099



-- 


--
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or 
professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this 
email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this 
communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or 
otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your 
incorrect receipt of this correspondence.