From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |
Date: | 2022-08-16 21:02:27 |
Message-ID: | 1539738.1660683747@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I had that thought too, but I don't *think* it's the case. This
> function acquires a lock on the oldest bucket page, then on the new
> bucket page. We could deadlock if someone who holds a pin on the new
> bucket page tries to take a content lock on the old bucket page. But
> who would do that? The new bucket page isn't yet linked from the
> metapage at this point, so no scan should do that. There can be no
> concurrent writers during replay. I think that if someone else has the
> new page pinned they probably should not be taking content locks on
> other buffers at the same time.
Agreed, the core code shouldn't do that, but somebody doing random stuff
with pageinspect functions could probably make a query do this.
See [1]; unless we're going to reject that bug with "don't do that",
I'm not too comfortable with this line of reasoning.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/17568-ef121b956ec1559c%40postgresql.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-08-16 21:15:44 | Re: Generalize ereport_startup_progress infrastructure |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-16 20:57:08 | Re: Making Vars outer-join aware |