Re: SSI bug?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "YAMAMOTO Takashi" <yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp>
Cc: <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>,<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI bug?
Date: 2011-03-31 13:31:40
Message-ID: 4D943BEC020000250003BFDA@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp> wrote:

> hoge=# select locktype,count(*) from pg_locks group by locktype;
> -[ RECORD 1 ]--------
> locktype | virtualxid
> count | 1
> -[ RECORD 2 ]--------
> locktype | relation
> count | 1
> -[ RECORD 3 ]--------
> locktype | tuple
> count | 7061

I've stared at the code for hours and have only come up with one
race condition which can cause this, although the window is so small
it's hard to believe that you would get this volume of orphaned
locks. I'll keep looking, but if you could try this to see if it
has a material impact, that would be great.

I am very sure this patch is needed and that it is safe. It moves a
LWLockAcquire statement up to cover the setup for the loop that it
already covers. It also includes a fix to a comment that got missed
when we switched from the pointer between lock targets to
duplicating the locks.

-Kevin

Attachment Content-Type Size
ssi-old-tuple-locks.patch text/plain 1.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message rsmogura 2011-03-31 13:53:01 Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache
Previous Message Bernd Helmle 2011-03-31 12:38:00 wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP