| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |
| Date: | 2022-09-30 19:05:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20220930190512.5aiar5cdr5suoiee@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
This issue does occasionally happen in CI, as e.g. noted in this thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220930185345.GD6256%40telsasoft.com
On 2022-08-18 15:17:47 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I agree with you that getting rid of the clean-up lock on the new
> bucket is a more invasive patch and should be done separately if
> required. Yesterday, I have done a brief analysis and I think that is
> possible but it doesn't seem to be a good idea to backpatch it.
My problem with this approach is that the whole cleanup lock is hugely
misleading as-is. As I noted in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220817193032.z35vdjhpzkgldrd3%40awork3.anarazel.de
we take the cleanup lock *after* re-initializing the page. Thereby
completely breaking the properties that a cleanup lock normally tries to
guarantee.
Even if that were to achieve something useful (doubtful in this case),
it'd need a huge comment explaining what's going on.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-09-30 19:23:50 | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-09-30 19:04:38 | Re: disfavoring unparameterized nested loops |