I'm looking to drop a currently in production trigger because it's no longer needed, but the problem is that when I try the simplest way, which is something like
drop trigger <triggername> on <tablename>
It caused a huge table lock and everything froze!
What the trigger does is:
When a row is inserted or updated, check for a field's contents, split it and populate another table.
How should I proceed to instantly disable (and dropping afterwards) without causing hassle in our production environment?
Thanks in advance and sorry for my english ;)
You could try ALTER TABLE ... DISABLE TRIGGER - but it requires the same strength of lock, so I don't think it'll do you much good.
There's work in PostgreSQL 9.4 to make ALTER TABLE take weaker locks for some operations. It might help with this.
In the mean time, I'd CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION to replace the trigger with a simple no-op function.
Then, to actually drop the trigger, I'd probably write a script that does:
BEGIN;
LOCK TABLE the_table IN ACCESS EXCLUSIVE MODE NOWAIT;
DROP TRIGGER ...;
COMMIT;
If anybody's using the table the script will abort at the LOCK TABLE.
I'd then run it in a loop until it succeeded.
If that didn't work (if the table is always busy) but if most transactions were really short, I might attempt a LOCK TABLE without NOWAIT, but set a short statement_timeout. So the script would be something like:
BEGIN;
SET LOCAL statement_timeout = '5s';
LOCK TABLE the_table IN ACCESS EXCLUSIVE MODE NOWAIT;
DROP TRIGGER ...;
COMMIT;
That ensures a fairly short disruption by failing if it can't complete the job in time. Again, I'd run it periodically until it succeeded.
If neither approach was effective - say, due to lots of long-running transactions - I'd probably just accept the need to lock it for a little while. I'd start the drop trigger then I'd pg_terminate_backend all concurrent transactions that held locks on the table so their connections dropped and their transactions terminated. That'd let the drop trigger proceed promptly, at the cost of greater disruption. You can only consider an approach like this if your apps are well-written so they'll just retry transactions on transient errors like connection drops.
Another possible approach is to disable (not drop) the trigger by modifying the system catalogs directly.
According to the docs, since 9.5 alter table ... disable trigger now takes a SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE lock, so that might be the way to go now.
Related
I'm pretty new to PostgreSQL and I'm sure I'm missing something here.
The scenario is with version 11, executing a big drop table and insert transaction on a given table with the nodejs driver, which may take 30 minutes.
While doing that, if I try to query with select on that table using the jdbc driver, the query execution waits for the transaction to finish. If I close the transaction (by finishing it or by forcing it to exit), the jdbc query becomes responsive.
I thought I can read a table with one connection while performing a transaction with another one.
What am I missing here?
Should I keep the table (without dropping it at the beginning of the transaction) ?
DROP TABLE takes an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock on the table, which is there precisely to prevent it from taking place concurrently with any other operation on the table. After all, DROP TABLE physically removes the table.
Since all locks are held until the end of the database transaction, all access to the dropped table is blocked until the transaction ends.
Of course the files are only removed when the transaction commits, so you might wonder why PostgreSQL doesn't let concurrent transactions read in the mean time. But that would mean that COMMIT may be blocked by a concurrent reader, or a SELECT might cause a system error in the middle of reading, both of which don't sound appealing.
Postgres 9.4, Ubuntu 10
I have been unable to find this exact problem here, so here it goes:
For each table t in my database, I have a table t_audit. Each delete, insert, and update on table t triggers a function that inserts a record to table t_audit.
Each night, a process truncates each t_audit table.
Last night, a select on table t prevented the truncate on t_audit from proceeding. I did not save what was in pg_stat_activity at the time, but I did save the output from blocking_locks().
Blocking pid: RowExclusiveLock, t, select * from t where ...,
Waiting pid: AccessExclusiveLock, t_audit, truncate table t_audit,
I am uncertain as to why a select on t would block the truncate on t_audit. As I did not save pg_stat_activity, the best that I can assume is that the select was "idle in transaction". I asked the person who was running the query at the time, and he said he was not running the update as part of a transaction. He did update table t just prior to the select. He did not close his connection as the pid was still active until I ran pg_terminate_backend on the pid.
Has anyone experienced this issue before? Is there a recommended procedure for this other than running pg_terminate_backend on any pids which are "idle in transaction" just prior to calling truncates?
Thank you for reading and taking time to respond.
Are there any triggers in place that might cause even something as innocuous as a SELECT on the audit table at the same time as the TRUNCATE (although the fact that it's a Row Exclusive lock indicates that whatever is being triggered is something like an UPDATE instead)? From the PG 9.4 locking documentation, SELECT and TRUNCATE would indeed block each other as expected behavior. The relevant tidbits are these:
ACCESS SHARE
Conflicts with the ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock mode only.
The SELECT command acquires a lock of this mode on referenced tables. In general, any query that only reads a table and does not modify it will acquire this lock mode.
ACCESS EXCLUSIVE
Conflicts with locks of all modes (ACCESS SHARE, ROW SHARE, ROW EXCLUSIVE, SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, SHARE, SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE, EXCLUSIVE, and ACCESS EXCLUSIVE). This mode guarantees that the holder is the only transaction accessing the table in any way.
Acquired by the DROP TABLE, TRUNCATE, REINDEX, CLUSTER, and VACUUM FULL commands. Many forms of ALTER TABLE also acquire a lock at this level.
And even more specifically telling is this explicit tip on that page:
Tip: Only an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock blocks a SELECT (without FOR UPDATE/SHARE) statement.
As for what to do in this scenario, if your use case is tolerant of unceremonious terminations of (possibly idle) connections, that is certainly a straightforward way of ensuring that the TRUNCATE succeeds.
A more flexible alternative may be to clear out the table with DELETE instead, and then follow up with some variation of VACUUM afterwards (DELETE and SELECT will not block each other, but it will block UPDATE). The suitability of this approach would depend a lot on things like the growth pattern of the table from day-to-day (simply VACUUM may be suitable if its maximum size is not that different day-to-day) and how badly you need that space reclaimed in the short term if it is a huge table - you may need to VACUUM FULL that table during a quiet window if you need the space quickly and badly, but VACUUM FULL is not a gentle hammer to swing by any means.
I have the following column in a postgreSQL database
column | character varying(10) | not null default 'default'::character varying
I want to drop it, but the database is huge and if it blocks updates for an extended period of time I will be publicly flogged, and likely drawn and quartered. I found a blog from braintree, here, which suggests this is a safe operation but its a little vague.
The ALTER TABLE command needs to acquire an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock on the table, which will block everything trying to access that table, including SELECTs, and, as the name implies, needs to wait for existing operations to finish so it can be exclusive.
So, if your table is extremely busy, it may not get an opportunity to actually acquire the exclusive lock, and will simply block for what is functionally forever.
It also depends whether this column has a lot of indexes and dependencies. If there are dependencies (i.e. foreign keys or views), you'll need to add CASCADE to the DROP COLUMN, and this will increase the work that needs to be done, and the amount of time it will need to hold the exclusive lock.
So, it's not risk free. However, you should know fairly quickly after trying it whether it's likely to block for a long time. If you can try it and safely take a minute or two of potentially blocking that table, it's worth a shot -- try the drop and see. If it doesn't complete within a relatively short period of time, abort the command and you'll likely need to schedule some downtime of at least the app(s) that are hammering the table. (You can take a look at the server activity and the lock activity to try to surmise what's hammering that table.)
does drop column block a PostgreSQL database
The answer to that is no, because it does not block the database.
However any DDL statement requires an exclusive lock on the table being changed. Which means no other transaction can access the table. So the table is "blocked", not the database.
However the time to drop a column is really very short, because the column isn't physically removed from the table but only marked as no longer there.
And don't forget to commit the DDL statement (if you have turned autocommit off), otherwise the table will be blocked until you commit your change.
I need to modify a Trigger (which use a particular FUNCTION) already defined and it is being in use. If i modify it using CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION, what is the behaviour of Postgres? will it "pause" the old trigger while it is updating the function?. As far as i know, Postgres should execute all the REPLACE FUNCTION in one transaction (so the tables are locked and so the triggers being modify while it is updating, then next transactions locked will use the new FUNCTION not the old one. is it correct?
Yes. According to the documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/explicit-locking.html
Also, most PostgreSQL commands automatically acquire locks of appropriate modes to ensure that referenced tables are not dropped or modified in incompatible ways while the command executes. (For example, ALTER TABLE cannot safely be executed concurrently with other operations on the same table, so it obtains an exclusive lock on the table to enforce that.)
will it "pause" the old trigger while it is updating the function?
It should continue executing the old trigger functions when calls are in progress (depending on the isolation level, subsequent calls in the same transaction should use the old definition too; I'm not 100% sure the default level would do so, however), block new transactions that try to call the function while it's being updated, and execute the new function once it's replaced.
As far as i know, Postgres should execute all the REPLACE FUNCTION in one transaction (so the tables are locked and so the triggers being modify while it is updating, then next transactions locked will use the new FUNCTION not the old one. is it correct?
Best I'm aware the function associated to the trigger doesn't lock the table when it's updated.
Please take this with a grain of salt, though: the two above statements amount to what I'd intuitively expect mvcc to do, rather than knowing this area of Postgres' source code off the top of my head. (A few core contributors periodically come to SO, and might eventually chime in with a more precise answer.)
Note that this is relatively straightforward to test, that being said: open two psql sessions, open two transactions, and see what happens...
I am trying find out what is postgres can handle safely inside of transaction, but I cannot find the relavant information in the postgres manual. So far I have found out the following:
UPDATE, INSERT and DELTE are fully supported inside transactions and rolled back when the transaction is not finished
DROP TABLE is not handled safely inside a transaction, and is undone with a CREATE TABLE, thus recreates the dropped table but does not repopulate it
CREATE TABLE is also not truly transactionized and is instead undone with a corresponding DROP TABLE
Is this correct? Also I could not find any hints as to the handling of ALTER TABLE and TRUNCATE. In what way are those handled and are they safe inside transactions? Is there a difference of the handling between different types of transactions and different versions of postgres?
DROP TABLE is transactional. To undo this, you need to issue a ROLLBACK not a CREATE TABLE. The same goes for CREATE TABLE (which is also undone using ROLLBACK).
ROLLBACK is always the only correct way to undo a transaction - that includes ALTER TABLE and TRUNCATE.
The only thing that is never transactional in Postgres are the numbers generated by a sequence (CREATE/ALTER/DROP SEQUENCE themselves are transactional though).
Best I'm aware all of these commands are transaction aware, except for TRUNCATE ... RESTART IDENTITY (and even that one is transactional since 9.1.)
See the manual on concurrency control and transaction-related commands.