Re: [PATCH] Fix ProcKill lock-group vs procLatch recycle race

From: Vlad Lesin <vladlesin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ProcKill lock-group vs procLatch recycle race
Date: 2026-05-05 16:31:36
Message-ID: 880dc09b-c61a-4d00-9690-52b4650b0cb9@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrey, thank you for your fixes.

On 5/5/26 12:07, Andrey Borodin wrote:

> To help resolve this confusion I'm posting following sequence:
>
> 1. vAB1-0001-Add-regression-test-for-ProcKill-lock-group-pro.patch
> This is an original test that is expected to demonstrate problem.
> It contains heavy injection points refactoring, I assume it's not intended for commit.
> This test was taken from a file 0003-PG18-unfixed-repro-tap-injection-harness.patch
>
> 2. vAB1-0002-Canonicalize-test-with-infrastructure.patch
> My changes needed to make test runnable.
>
> 3. vAB1-0003-Fix-ProcKill-lock-group-vs-procLatch-recycle-ra.patch
> Fix for the problem, proposed by the thread starter, rebased on current HEAD
> and test patch.
> The test passes after this step.
Deferring pgstat_reset_wait_event_storage() call in (3) enables the test
in (1) to work once (2) is applied. Without this change, the test hangs.
It might make sense to commit the test.

--
Best regards,
Vlad

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-05-05 16:56:09 Re: small cleanup for s_lock.h
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2026-05-05 16:08:38 Re: small cleanup for s_lock.h