From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: pg_sleep() doesn't work well with recovery conflict interrupts. |
Date: | 2014-06-01 07:35:27 |
Message-ID: | 20140601073527.GG4286@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-30 10:30:42 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since a64ca63e59c11d8fe6db24eee3d82b61db7c2c83 pg_sleep() uses
> > WaitLatch() to wait. That's fine in itself. But
> > procsignal_sigusr1_handler, which is used e.g. when resolving recovery
> > conflicts, doesn't unconditionally do a SetLatch().
> > That means that we'll we'll currently not be able to cancel conflicting
> > backends during recovery for 10min. Now, I don't think that'll happen
> > too often in practice, but it's still annoying.
>
> How will such a situation occur, aren't we using pg_usleep during
> RecoveryConflict functions
> (ex. in ResolveRecoveryConflictWithVirtualXIDs)?
I am not sure what you mean. pg_sleep() is the SQL callable function, a
different thing to pg_usleep(). The latter isn't interruptible on all
platforms, but the sleep times should be short enough for that not to
matter.
I am pretty sure by now that the sane fix for this is to add a
SetLatch() call to RecoveryConflictInterrupt(). All the signal handlers
that deal with query cancelation et al. do so, so it seems right that
RecoveryConflictInterrupt() does so as well.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-06-01 11:43:11 | Re: "pivot aggregation" with a patched intarray |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-06-01 07:26:26 | Re: avoiding tuple copying in btree index builds |