From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Torsten Förtsch <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: locks held during commit with synchronous replication |
Date: | 2013-10-21 18:46:24 |
Message-ID: | 2456.1382381184@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Torsten_F=F6rtsch?= <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I noticed that with synchronous replication I often see locks like this:
> [ AccessExclusiveLock on "database 0" ]
You did not say what PG version you're talking about, but if it's recent
then this must be coming from PreCommit_Notify, which takes such a lock
while pushing entries into the shared notification-event queue:
/*
* Serialize writers by acquiring a special lock that we hold till
* after commit. This ensures that queue entries appear in commit
* order, and in particular that there are never uncommitted queue
* entries ahead of committed ones, so an uncommitted transaction
* can't block delivery of deliverable notifications.
*
* We use a heavyweight lock so that it'll automatically be released
* after either commit or abort. This also allows deadlocks to be
* detected, though really a deadlock shouldn't be possible here.
*
* The lock is on "database 0", which is pretty ugly but it doesn't
* seem worth inventing a special locktag category just for this.
* (Historical note: before PG 9.0, a similar lock on "database 0" was
* used by the flatfiles mechanism.)
*/
LockSharedObject(DatabaseRelationId, InvalidOid, 0,
AccessExclusiveLock);
This has nothing to do with synchronous replication, only with use of
LISTEN/NOTIFY.
> Does that mean that only one transaction can be committed at a time?
If they're sending notifies, yes.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-21 18:53:49 | Re: Bug? Function with side effects not evaluated in CTE |
Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-10-21 18:12:34 | Re: Upgrade from 9.1 to 9.10 |