From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |
Date: | 2019-06-18 22:25:47 |
Message-ID: | 20190618222547.GA18769@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jun-18, Oleksii Kliukin wrote:
> Sorry, I was confused, as I was looking only at
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=de87a084c0a5ac927017cd0834b33a932651cfc9
>
> without taking your subsequent commit that silences compiler warnings at
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=3da73d6839dc47f1f47ca57974bf28e5abd9b572
> into consideration. With that commit, the danger is indeed in resetting the
> skip mechanism on each jump and potentially causing deadlocks.
Yeah, I understand the confusion.
Anyway, as bugs go, this one seems pretty benign. It would result in a
unexplained deadlock, very rarely, and only for people who use a very
strange locking pattern that includes (row-level) lock upgrades. I
think it also requires aborted savepoints too, though I don't rule out
the possibility that there might be a way to reproduce this without
that.
I pushed the patch again just now, with the new permutation.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-18 22:55:37 | pgsql: Fix memory corruption/crash in ANALYZE. |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-06-18 22:24:38 | pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-18 23:02:40 | Re: PG 12 beta 1 segfault during analyze |
Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2019-06-18 22:24:08 | Re: Avoiding hash join batch explosions with extreme skew and weird stats |