| From: | Michael Harris <harmic(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Undetected Deadlock |
| Date: | 2022-02-09 23:50:04 |
| Message-ID: | CADofcAUPS1fC9CGiKPQda6kjf8moFbAo4HDm58qK45W1j-3puA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 09:57, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Do you want to try this and see if it actually adds any robustness with your buggy code?
Sorry for the delayed response, & thanks for the patch.
I wasn't able to test with our actual application because it could
take days for it to actually trigger the problem, so I tested it with
a simulation, which you can find here:
https://github.com/harmic/pg_almloss
With that simulation I could attach gdb to the backend and see that
signal_pending & signal_due_at were being reset in the expected way,
even when a missed interrupt was triggered.
I'm convinced your patch improves robustness under the scenario we saw.
Thanks again!
Cheers
Mike
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-09 23:53:25 | Re: Undetected Deadlock |
| Previous Message | Rama Krishnan | 2022-02-09 23:41:07 | Performance issue questions |