Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease
Date: 2014-02-14 16:28:28
Message-ID: 20140214162828.GU4910@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-02-14 20:23:32 +0400, knizhnik wrote:
> >>we'll trade correctness for cleanliness if we continue to reset lwWaitLink
> >>without protecting against the race. That's a bit of a weird trade-off to make.
> >
> >It's not just cleanliness, it's being able to actually debug crashes.
>
>
> Frankly speaking I do not understand why elimination of resetting of lwWaitLink was considered to be bad idea.
> Resetting this pointer to NULL will not help much to analyze crash dumps, because right now it is possible that lwWaitLink==NULL but process in waiting for a lock and linked in the list
> (if it is the last element of the list). So the fact that lwWaitLink==NULL actually gives not so much useful information.

At the moment if you connect to a live pg or a crash dump, investigating
the wait links allows you to somewhat sensibly determine which backends
are waiting for a lock and whether they are part of a queue. If they
aren't reset anymore that will tell you nothing, so you'll need to
connect to all pg instances to debug issues.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message eshkinkot 2014-02-14 16:31:25 BUG #9223: plperlu result memory leak
Previous Message knizhnik 2014-02-14 16:23:32 Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease