From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
Date: | 2020-03-15 11:04:28 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tOhzvSrAe-D+4GdXS-+K=pdtyuYwQExrid4SZme9VVCg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 1:15 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 7:39 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:02 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Apart from that, I have also extended the solution for the page lock.
> > > And, I have also broken down the 3rd patch in two parts for relation
> > > extension and for the page lock.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, I have made a number of cosmetic changes and written
> > appropriate commit messages for all patches. See the attached patch
> > series and let me know your opinion? BTW, did you get a chance to test
> > page locks by using the extension which I have posted above or by some
> > other way? I think it is important to test page-lock related patches
> > now.
>
> I have reviewed the updated patches and looks fine to me. Apart from
> this I have done testing for the Page Lock using group locking
> extension.
>
> --Setup
> create table gin_test_tbl(i int4[]) with (autovacuum_enabled = off);
> create index gin_test_idx on gin_test_tbl using gin (i);
> create table gin_test_tbl1(i int4[]) with (autovacuum_enabled = off);
> create index gin_test_idx1 on gin_test_tbl1 using gin (i);
>
> --session1:
> select become_lock_group_leader();
> select gin_clean_pending_list('gin_test_idx');
>
> --session2:
> select become_lock_group_member(session1_pid);
> select gin_clean_pending_list('gin_test_idx1');
>
> --session3:
> select become_lock_group_leader();
> select gin_clean_pending_list('gin_test_idx1');
>
> --session4:
> select become_lock_group_member(session3_pid);
> select gin_clean_pending_list('gin_test_idx');
>
> ERROR: deadlock detected
> DETAIL: Process 61953 waits for ExclusiveLock on page 0 of relation
> 16399 of database 13577; blocked by process 62197.
> Process 62197 waits for ExclusiveLock on page 0 of relation 16400 of
> database 13577; blocked by process 61953.
> HINT: See server log for query details.
>
>
> Session1 and Session3 acquire the PageLock on two different index's
> meta-pages and blocked in gdb, meanwhile, their member tries to
> acquire the page lock as shown in the above example and it detects the
> deadlock which is solved after applying the patch.
I have modified 0001 and 0002 slightly, Basically, instead of two
function CheckAndSetLockHeld and CheckAndReSetLockHeld, I have created
a one function.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v8-0001-Assert-that-we-don-t-acquire-a-heavyweight-lock-o.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.3 KB |
v8-0003-Allow-relation-extension-lock-to-conflict-among-p.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.9 KB |
v8-0004-Allow-page-lock-to-conflict-among-parallel-group-.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.2 KB |
v8-0002-Add-assert-to-ensure-that-page-locks-don-t-partic.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-15 11:18:31 | expose parallel leader in CSV and log_line_prefix |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-03-15 10:34:20 | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? |