Re: lock on object is already held

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Wood <dwood(at)salesforce(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: lock on object is already held
Date: 2013-11-27 17:30:37
Message-ID: 18886.1385573437@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Wood <dwood(at)salesforce(dot)com> writes:
> Does the original version of my stress test not repro the problem on 9.2?

[ tries it ... ] No, it doesn't, or at least the MTBF is a couple orders
of magnitude better than on 9.3.

Another odd thing (seen with my short version as well as your original)
is that 9.3/HEAD run the test case enormously faster than 9.2 and 9.1
do. The older versions seem to spend a lot of time sleeping, which
I don't understand.

> Why does LockAcquireExtended() test for "nLocks == 0" in the "if
> (dontWait)" block before calling RemoveLocalLock()?

Looks like a useless test to me --- we wouldn't be here at all if nLocks
had been positive to start with, and there's nothing in between that
could raise the count. On the other hand, removing a LOCALLOCK that
did have positive count would be disastrous. Maybe what would be
more appropriate is an Assert(nLocks == 0) in RemoveLocalLock().

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-11-27 17:34:39 Re: Extension Templates S03E11
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2013-11-27 17:21:46 Re: Status of FDW pushdowns