From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Cousin Marc <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
Date: | 2012-04-23 08:53:36 |
Message-ID: | 4F951890.9040006@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012-04-10 09:02 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> 2012-04-06 14:47 keltezéssel, Cousin Marc írta:
>> On 05/04/12 08:02, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>> 2012-04-04 21:30 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
>>>> I think this patch is doing two things: first touching infrastructure
>>>> stuff and then adding lock_timeout on top of that. Would it work to
>>>> split the patch in two pieces?
>>>>
>>> Sure. Attached is the split version.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Zoltán Böszörményi
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've started looking at and testing both patches.
>>
>> Technically speaking, I think the source looks much better than the
>> first version of lock timeout, and may help adding other timeouts in the
>> future. I haven't tested it in depth though, because I encountered the
>> following problem:
>>
>> While testing the patch, I found a way to crash PG. But what's weird is
>> that it crashes also with an unpatched git version.
>>
>> Here is the way to reproduce it (I have done it with a pgbench schema):
>>
>> - Set a small statement_timeout (just to save time during the tests)
>>
>> Session1:
>> =#BEGIN;
>> =#lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
>>
>> Session 2:
>> =#BEGIN;
>> =#lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
>> ERROR: canceling statement due to statement timeout
>> =# lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
>>
>> I'm using \set ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK INTERACTIVE by the way. It can also be
>> done with a rollback to savepoint of course.
>>
>> Session 2 crashes with this : TRAP : FailedAssertion(«
>> !(locallock->holdsStrongLockCount == 0) », fichier : « lock.c », ligne :
>> 749).
>>
>> It can also be done without a statement_timeout, and a control-C on the
>> second lock table.
>>
>> I didn't touch anything but this. It occurs everytime, when asserts are
>> activated.
>>
>> I tried it on 9.1.3, and I couldn't make it crash with the same sequence
>> of events. So maybe it's something introduced since ? Or is the assert
>> still valid ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> Attached are the new patches. I rebased them to current GIT and
> they are expected to be applied after Robert Haas' patch in the
> "bug in fast-path locking" thread.
>
> Now it survives the above scenario.
>
> Best regards,
> Zoltán Böszörményi
New patch attached, rebased to today's GIT.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig& Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
1-timeout-framework-v3.patch | text/x-patch | 55.0 KB |
2-lock_timeout-v3.patch | text/x-patch | 42.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc Cousin | 2012-04-23 13:08:32 | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2012-04-23 08:48:20 | Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte |