Re: Parallel worker error

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel worker error
Date: 2017-08-30 12:04:27
Message-ID: 24985.1504094667@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am able to reproduce this without involving session authorization
> guc as well. One needs to drop the newly created role from another
> session, then also we can see the same error.

Hm. I suspect the basic shape of what's happening here is "an existing
session can continue to run with OuterUserId corresponding to a dropped
role, but we fail when trying to duplicate that state into a parallel
worker". I wonder whether there aren't similar gotchas for other GUCs
whose interpretation depends on catalog lookups, eg search_path.

We might need to redesign the GUC-propagation mechanism so it sends
the various internal representations of GUC values, not the user-visible
strings. (I'm thinking of the blobs that guc.c can use to restore a
previous state at transaction abort ... don't recall what the code
calls them ATM.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2017-08-30 12:08:34 Re: WIP: Separate log file for extension
Previous Message Amit Khandekar 2017-08-30 12:02:52 Re: Parallel Append implementation