From: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
Date: | 2014-01-22 16:04:42 |
Message-ID: | 20140122160442.GK23743@defunct.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 22/01/14 12:40, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > 1. I find a issue in following scenario:
> >
> > session 1 with process id X: BEGIN; LOCK TABLE foo IN SHARE MODE;
> > session 2 with process id Y: BEGIN; LOCK TABLE foo IN EXCLUSIVE MODE;
> > session 3 with process id Z: BEGIN; LOCK TABLE foo IN SHARE MODE;
> >
> > On execution of LOCK in session-3, as part of log it will display as:
> > processes owning lock: X, Y
> > But actually if we see Y has not yet own the lock, it is still waiting with higher priority.
> > It may mislead user.
> > May be we should change message to give all meaning i.e. which process is owning lock and
> > Which process is already in queue.
>
> Perhaps this?
>
> CONTEXT: lock owner XXXX request queue XXX, XXX, XXX, etc
Fixed.
> > 2. Can we give a better name to new variable 'buf1'?
Fixed.
> > 3. Do we need to take performance reading to see if any impact?
>
> Don't think so. Diagnosing problems will help performance, not hinder it
I agree. And this code path will only get executed when log_lock_waits
= on, which seems to be a debugging method to me.
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
show_pids_in_lock_log_v2.patch | text/x-diff | 4.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-01-22 16:17:29 | Re: Patch: Show process IDs of processes holding a lock; show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-22 15:48:58 | Re: Changeset Extraction v7.0 (was logical changeset generation) |