From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Locking a row with KEY SHARE NOWAIT blocks |
Date: | 2019-09-05 04:31:53 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+9-iLoyVhj5F6=Mp6zBv3dTdbYK_jUSmU5mfRnD8AcPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:58 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> When you lock a row with FOR KEY SHARE, and the row's non-key columns
> have been updated, heap_lock_tuple() walks the update chain to mark all
> the in-progress tuple versions also as locked. But it doesn't pay
> attention to the NOWAIT or SKIP LOCKED flags when doing so. The
> heap_lock_updated_tuple() function walks the update chain, but the
> 'wait_policy' argument is not passed to it. As a result, a SELECT in KEY
> SHARE NOWAIT query can block waiting for another updating transaction,
> despite the NOWAIT modifier.
>
> This can be reproduced with the attached isolation test script.
>
> I'm not sure how to fix this. The logic to walk the update chain and
> propagate the tuple lock is already breathtakingly complicated :-(.
>
Can't we pass the wait_policy parameter to heap_lock_updated_tuple and
do the same handling as we do in the caller (heap_lock_tuple)?
Basically, whenever we need to wait on any tuple version do the same
as we do in heap_lock_tuple for 'require_sleep' case.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2019-09-05 06:10:58 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Aggregation push-down |
Previous Message | amul sul | 2019-09-05 04:23:28 | Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join |