Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework

From: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Cousin Marc <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework
Date: 2012-04-08 09:24:33
Message-ID: 4F815951.8040900@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2012-04-06 14:47 keltezéssel, Cousin Marc írta:
> On 05/04/12 08:02, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>> 2012-04-04 21:30 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
>>> I think this patch is doing two things: first touching infrastructure
>>> stuff and then adding lock_timeout on top of that. Would it work to
>>> split the patch in two pieces?
>>>
>> Sure. Attached is the split version.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Zoltán Böszörményi
>>
> Hi,
>
> I've started looking at and testing both patches.
>
> Technically speaking, I think the source looks much better than the
> first version of lock timeout, and may help adding other timeouts in the
> future.

Thanks.

> I haven't tested it in depth though, because I encountered the
> following problem:
>
> While testing the patch, I found a way to crash PG. But what's weird is
> that it crashes also with an unpatched git version.
>
> Here is the way to reproduce it (I have done it with a pgbench schema):
>
> - Set a small statement_timeout (just to save time during the tests)
>
> Session1:
> =#BEGIN;
> =#lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
>
> Session 2:
> =#BEGIN;
> =#lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
> ERROR: canceling statement due to statement timeout
> =# lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
>
> I'm using \set ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK INTERACTIVE by the way. It can also be
> done with a rollback to savepoint of course.
>
> Session 2 crashes with this : TRAP : FailedAssertion(«
> !(locallock->holdsStrongLockCount == 0) », fichier : « lock.c », ligne :
> 749).
>
> It can also be done without a statement_timeout, and a control-C on the
> second lock table.

Indeed, the unpatched GIT version crashes if you enter
=#lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
the second time in session 2 after the first one failed. Also,
manually spelling it out:

Session 1:

$ psql
psql (9.2devel)
Type "help" for help.

zozo=# begin;
BEGIN
zozo=# lock table pgbench_accounts;
LOCK TABLE
zozo=#

Session 2:

zozo=# begin;
BEGIN
zozo=# savepoint a;
SAVEPOINT
zozo=# lock table pgbench_accounts;
ERROR: canceling statement due to statement timeout
zozo=# rollback to a;
ROLLBACK
zozo=# savepoint b;
SAVEPOINT
zozo=# lock table pgbench_accounts;
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
!>

Server log after the second lock table:

TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(locallock->holdsStrongLockCount == 0)", File: "lock.c", Line: 749)
LOG: server process (PID 12978) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted

Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi

>
> I didn't touch anything but this. It occurs everytime, when asserts are
> activated.
>
> I tried it on 9.1.3, and I couldn't make it crash with the same sequence
> of events. So maybe it's something introduced since ? Or is the assert
> still valid ?
>
> Cheers
>

--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig& Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message hans wulf 2012-04-08 10:51:04 Re: 9.1.3 Standby catchup mode
Previous Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2012-04-08 09:10:19 Re: Last gasp