| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: upgrades in row-level locks can deadlock |
| Date: | 2019-06-13 21:37:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20190613213731.GA11593@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jun-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-13, Oleksii Kliukin wrote:
>
> > Makes sense. For the symmetry I have included those that perform lock
> > upgrades in one session and those that doesn’t, while the other sessions
> > acquire locks, do updates or deletes. For those that don’t upgrade locks the
> > test checks that the locks are acquired in the correct order.
>
> Thanks for the updated patch! I'm about to push to branches 9.6-master.
> It applies semi-cleanly (only pgindent-maturity whitespace conflicts).
Done, thanks for the report and patch!
I tried hard to find a scenario that this patch breaks, but couldn't
find anything.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-13 22:38:47 | Re: Hash join explain is broken |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-13 21:32:14 | pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |