From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Race condition between PREPARE TRANSACTION and COMMIT PREPARED (was Re: Problem with txid_snapshot_in/out() functionality) |
Date: | 2014-04-14 17:30:13 |
Message-ID: | 20140414173013.GY4161@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-04-14 12:51:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The whole thing feels like we are solving the wrong problem, anyway.
> IIUC, the complaint arises because we are allowing COMMIT PREPARED
> to occur before the source transaction has reported successful prepare
> to its client. Surely that does not need to be a legal case? No
> correctly-operating 2PC xact manager would do that.
I agree here. This seems somewhat risky, just to support a case that
shouldn't happen in reality - as somewhat evidenced by the fact that
there don't seem to be field reports around this.
> The upthread idea of looking at vxid
> instead of xid might help, except that I see we clear both of them
> in ProcArrayClearTransaction. We'd need some state in PGPROC that
> isn't cleared till later than that.
I wonder if the most natural way to express this wouldn't be to have a
heavyweight lock for every 2pc xact
'slot'. ResourceOwnerRelease(RESOURCE_RELEASE_LOCKS) should be scheduled
correctly to make error handling for this work.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-14 17:44:56 | Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-14 17:26:55 | Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock? |