From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Cousin Marc <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] lock_timeout and common SIGALRM framework |
Date: | 2012-04-10 07:02:49 |
Message-ID: | 4F83DB19.7010701@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012-04-06 14:47 keltezéssel, Cousin Marc írta:
> On 05/04/12 08:02, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>> 2012-04-04 21:30 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
>>> I think this patch is doing two things: first touching infrastructure
>>> stuff and then adding lock_timeout on top of that. Would it work to
>>> split the patch in two pieces?
>>>
>> Sure. Attached is the split version.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Zoltán Böszörményi
>>
> Hi,
>
> I've started looking at and testing both patches.
>
> Technically speaking, I think the source looks much better than the
> first version of lock timeout, and may help adding other timeouts in the
> future. I haven't tested it in depth though, because I encountered the
> following problem:
>
> While testing the patch, I found a way to crash PG. But what's weird is
> that it crashes also with an unpatched git version.
>
> Here is the way to reproduce it (I have done it with a pgbench schema):
>
> - Set a small statement_timeout (just to save time during the tests)
>
> Session1:
> =#BEGIN;
> =#lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
>
> Session 2:
> =#BEGIN;
> =#lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
> ERROR: canceling statement due to statement timeout
> =# lock TABLE pgbench_accounts ;
>
> I'm using \set ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK INTERACTIVE by the way. It can also be
> done with a rollback to savepoint of course.
>
> Session 2 crashes with this : TRAP : FailedAssertion(«
> !(locallock->holdsStrongLockCount == 0) », fichier : « lock.c », ligne :
> 749).
>
> It can also be done without a statement_timeout, and a control-C on the
> second lock table.
>
> I didn't touch anything but this. It occurs everytime, when asserts are
> activated.
>
> I tried it on 9.1.3, and I couldn't make it crash with the same sequence
> of events. So maybe it's something introduced since ? Or is the assert
> still valid ?
>
> Cheers
>
Attached are the new patches. I rebased them to current GIT and
they are expected to be applied after Robert Haas' patch in the
"bug in fast-path locking" thread.
Now it survives the above scenario.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig& Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
1-timeout-framework-v2.patch | text/x-patch | 54.9 KB |
2-lock_timeout-v2.patch | text/x-patch | 42.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-04-10 07:35:21 | Re: ECPG FETCH readahead |
Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-04-10 06:54:54 | Re: bug in fast-path locking |