From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review: Hot standby |
Date: | 2008-11-21 13:35:35 |
Message-ID: | 1227274535.7015.80.camel@hp_dx2400_1 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 15:21 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> + /*
> + * Release locks, if any.
> + */
> + RelationReleaseRecoveryLocks(xlrec->slotId);
>
>
> If I am reading the patch correctly, AccessExclusiveLocks acquired by
> a transaction will be released when the transaction is committed or
> aborted. If the transaction errors out with FATAL, the locks will be
> released when the next transaction occupying the same slot is
> committed/aborted.
>
> I smell some sort of deadlock condition here. What if the following
> events happen:
>
> - transaction A (slot 1) starts and acquires AEL lock on relation
> - transaction A errors out with FATAL error
> - transaction B (slot 1) starts and requests AEL lock on the same
> relation
>
> Won't B deadlock with A ? Since B hasn't yet committed/aborted, the
> lock held by A is not released and
> relation_redo_lock() would indefinitely wait for the lock.
This won't happen because the lock is held by the startup process on
behalf of slot 1. Explained in comments in inval.c code.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-11-21 13:36:07 | Re: Autoconf, libpq and replacement function |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-11-21 13:33:39 | Re: SSL configure patch: review |