From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Francesco Degrassi <francesco(dot)degrassi(at)optionfactory(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at parallel query start |
Date: | 2024-11-08 23:36:49 |
Message-ID: | 20241108233649.01.nmisch@google.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 12:56:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Here's a proposed patch along that line. I left the test case from
> > ac04aa84a alone, since it works perfectly well to test this way too.
>
> I'd modeled that on the existing recovery code for DSM segment creation
> failure, just below. But a look at the code coverage report shows
> (unsurprisingly) that that path is never exercised in our regression
> tests, so I wondered if it actually works ... and it doesn't work
> very well. To test, I lobotomized InitializeParallelDSM to always
> force pcxt->nworkers = 0. That results in a bunch of unsurprising
> regression test diffs, plus a couple of
>
> +ERROR: could not find key 4 in shm TOC at 0x229f138
>
> which turns out to be the fault of ExecHashJoinReInitializeDSM:
> it's not accounting for the possibility that we didn't really
> start a parallel hash join.
>
> I'm also not happy about ReinitializeParallelWorkers'
>
> Assert(pcxt->nworkers >= nworkers_to_launch);
>
> The one existing caller manages not to trigger that because it's
> careful to reduce its request based on pcxt->nworkers, but it
> doesn't seem to me that callers should be expected to have to.
>
> So I end with the attached. There might still be some more issues
> that the regression tests don't reach, but I think this is the
> best we can do for today.
Looks good.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-11-09 12:01:17 | Re: Segmentation fault - PostgreSQL 17.0 |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-11-08 20:40:39 | Re: HashAgg degenerate case |