Re: ERROR during end-of-xact/FATAL

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:14:53AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > If the original AbortTransaction() pertained to a FATAL, the situation is
> > worse. errfinish() promotes the ERROR thrown from AbortTransaction() to
> > another FATAL,
>
> isn't errstart promotes ERROR to FATAL?

Right.

> When I tried above scenario, I hit Assert at different place
...
> This means that in the situation when an ERROR occurs in
> AbortTransaction which is called as a result of FATAL error, there are
> many more possibilities of Assert.

Agreed.

> About unclean FATAL-then-ERROR scenario, one way to deal at high level
> could be to treat such a case as backend crash in which case
> postmaster reinitialises shared memory and other stuff.
>
> > If we can't manage to
> > free a shared memory resource like a lock or buffer pin, we really must PANIC.
>
> Can't we try to initialise the shared memory and other resources,
> wouldn't that resolve the problem's that can occur due to scenario
> explained by you?

A PANIC will reinitialize everything relevant, largely resolving the problems
around ERROR during FATAL. It's a heavy-handed solution, but it may well be
the best solution. Efforts to harden CommitTransaction() and
AbortTransaction() seem well-spent, but the additional effort to make FATAL
exit cope where AbortTransaction() or another exit action could not cope seems
to be slicing ever-smaller portions of additional robustness.

I pondered a variant of that conclusion that distinguished critical cleanup
needs from the rest. Each shared resource (heavyweight locks, buffer pins,
LWLocks) would have an on_shmem_exit() callback that cleans up the resource
under a critical section. (AtProcExit_Buffers() used to fill such a role, but
resowner.c's work during AbortTransaction() has mostly supplanted it.) The
ShutdownPostgres callback would not use a critical section, so lesser failures
in AbortTransaction() would not upgrade to a PANIC. But I'm leaning against
such a complication on the grounds that it would add seldom-tested code paths
posing as much a chance of eroding robustness as bolstering it.

Thanks,
nm

--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com