Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at parallel query start

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
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: 2024-11-07 17:17:21
Message-ID: 3441950.1730999841@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:23:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do not have much faith in this patch. It assumes that the
>> condition "interrupts can be processed" is the same at plan time and
>> execution time. For plans extracted from the plan cache, there seems
>> little reason to assume that must be true. The proposed test case
>> cannot trigger that (today anyway) because SQL-language functions
>> don't deal in cached plans, but I suspect it could be broken with a
>> test case using a plpgsql function instead.

> Good point. I missed that.

While working on the release notes, I noticed that nothing further
got done about this concern. What do you think of adding a test
somewhere early in executor startup, to the effect of

if (!INTERRUPTS_CAN_BE_PROCESSED())
ereport(ERROR,
(errmsg("cannot start a query with interrupts disabled")));

It's definitely a band-aid, but it seems better than leaving
things at the status quo.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2024-11-07 19:22:33 Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at parallel query start
Previous Message Bastien Roucariès 2024-11-07 15:51:46 Re: Detection of hadware feature => please do not use signal