Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k o b j ect

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Locking the same lock twice is usually handled correctly, I don't
> understand why it fails in this case. I'm thinking that the locallock
> structs somehow get out of sync with the lock structs in shared memory.
> The twophase-records are created from the locallock structs alone, so if
> there's extra entries in the locallocks table for some reason, we'd get
> the symptoms we have.

Hmm. I was just noticing this comment in PostPrepare_Locks:

* We do this separately because we may have multiple locallock entries
* pointing to the same proclock, and we daren't end up with any dangling
* pointers.

I'm not clear at the moment on why such a state would exist, but could
it be related?

> Unless you have a better idea, I'd like to add some more debug-prints to
> AtPrepare_Locks to see what gets written to the state file and why.

Seems like a reasonable thing to pursue.

regards, tom lane