Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Deadlock condition in current sources

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Deadlock condition in current sources
Date: 2001-12-18 18:55:41
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E3251844F@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> However, there's still a problem: GetUndoRecPtr also gets SInvalLock
> while its caller holds WALInsertLock, and therefore this routine
> could create the second leg of the deadlock too.  Removing the
> SInvalLock lock there creates the problem that backends might be
> added to or deleted from the PROC array while GetUndoRecPtr runs.
> I think it might be possible to survive that, by adding an assumption
> that logRec.xrecoff can be set to zero atomically, but it 
> seems tricky.

Checkpoint' undo is not used currently so just comment out GetUndoRecPtr
call in CreateCheckPoint - we'll find solution later.

Vadim

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-12-18 19:05:43
Subject: Re: Deadlock condition in current sources
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-12-18 18:53:37
Subject: Re: problems with table corruption continued

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group