Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Date: 2021-11-11 03:41:53
Message-ID: 20211111034153.ekclyrp7oso5wtd4@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-11-11 12:22:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > 2.
> > LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_SHARED);
> >
> > + flags = proc->statusFlags;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the source xact has any statusFlags, we re-grab ProcArrayLock
> > + * on exclusive mode so we can copy it to MyProc->statusFlags.
> > + */
> > + if (flags != 0)
> > + {
> > + LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
> > + LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
> > + }
> >
> >
> > This looks a bit odd to me. It would have been better if we know when
> > to acquire an exclusive lock without first acquiring the shared lock.
>
> I think we should acquire an exclusive lock only if status flags are
> not empty. But to check the status flags we need to acquire a shared
> lock. No?

This seems like an unnecessary optimization. ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin()
only happens in the context of much more expensive operations.

I think it might be worth asserting that the set of flags we're copying is a
known subset of the flags that are valid to copy from the source.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2021-11-11 03:47:16 Re: 2021-11-11 release announcement draft
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-11-11 03:35:05 Re: Weird failure in explain.out with OpenBSD