From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Subject: | Re: Adding a test for speculative insert abort case |
Date: | 2019-05-10 21:40:38 |
Message-ID: | 20190510214038.5xt5fssdxrzx2yrs@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-01 11:41:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm imagining something like
>
> if (pg_try_advisory_xact_lock(1))
> pg_advisory_xact_lock(2);
> else
> pg_advisory_xact_lock(1);
>
> in t1_lock_func. If you then make the session something roughly like
>
> s1: pg_advisory_xact_lock(1);
> s1: pg_advisory_xact_lock(2);
>
> s2: upsert t1 <blocking for 1>
> s1: pg_advisory_xact_unlock(1);
> s2: <continuing>
> s2: <blocking for 2>
> s1: insert into t1 values(1, 'someval');
> s1: pg_advisory_xact_unlock(2);
> s2: <continuing>
> s2: spec-conflict
Needed to be slightly more complicated than that, but not that much. See
the attached test. What do you think?
I think we should apply something like this (minus the WARNING, of
course). It's a bit complicated, but it seems worth covering this
special case.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
speculative-conflict.diff | text/x-diff | 13.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-05-11 00:32:31 | Re: pg12 release notes |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-05-10 21:26:43 | Re: Why is infinite_recurse test suddenly failing? |