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
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 |