Re: Should PostgresMain() do a LWLockReleaseAll()?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should PostgresMain() do a LWLockReleaseAll()?
Date: 2014-02-23 20:29:38
Message-ID: 20140223202938.GA20412@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-02-23 14:48:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Currently the error handling of normal backends only does a
> > LWLockReleaseAll() once CurrentTransactionState->state != TRANS_DEFAULT
> > because it's called in AbortTransaction(). There's pretty damn few
> > places that fiddle with lwlocks outside of a transaction command, but I
> > still do wonder whether it'd wouldn't be a tad more robust to
> > unconditionally do a LWLockReleaseAll(), just like other error handlers
> > are doing?
>
> Why do that thing in particular, and not all the other things that
> AbortTransaction() does?

Because the other things in AbortTransaction() should really only be
relevant inside a transaction, but there's valid reasons to use lwlocks
outside one.

E.g. I think that before Robert and I added a LWLockReleaseAll() to
WalSndErrorCleanup() the whole walsender code wasn't protected. I am not
entirely sure there's a real problem there in the backbranches, but it's
a fair amount of code, espcially around base backups...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-02-23 20:32:06 Re: often PREPARE can generate high load (and sometimes minutes long unavailability)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-02-23 20:28:18 Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #9210: PostgreSQL string store bug? not enforce check with correct characterSET/encoding