Re: [PATCH] plpython function causes server panic

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hao Zhang <zhrt1446384557(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] plpython function causes server panic
Date: 2024-03-22 15:39:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZpk+dXtNDLvfO9MdJzMh-RCjJS3_SE7+jT0URCdSGeVg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Here's a draft patch along this line. Basically the idea is that
> subtransactions used for error control are now legal in parallel
> mode (including in parallel workers) so long as they don't try to
> acquire their own XIDs. I had to clean up some error handling
> in xact.c, but really this is a pretty simple patch.

I agree with the general direction. A few comments:

- Isn't it redundant to test if IsInParallelMode() ||
IsParallelWorker()? We can't be in a parallel worker without also
being in parallel mode, except during the worker startup sequence.

- I don't think the documentation changes are entirely accurate. The
whole point of the patch is to allow parallel workers to make changes
to the transaction state, but the documentation says you can't. Maybe
we should just delete "change the transaction state" entirely from the
list of things that you're not allowed to do, since "write to the
database" is already listed separately; or maybe we should replace it
with something like "assign new transaction IDs or command IDs,"
although that's kind of low-level. I don't think we should just delete
the "even temporarily" bit, as you've done.

- While I like the new comments in BeginInternalSubTransaction(), I
think the changes in ReleaseCurrentSubTransaction() and
RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction() need more thought. For one
thing, it's got to be wildly optimistic to claim that we would have
caught *anything* that's forbidden in parallel mode; that would
require solving the halting problem. I'd rather have no comment at all
here than one making such an ambitious claim, and I think that might
be a fine way to go. But if we do have a comment, I think it should be
more narrowly focused e.g. "We do not check for parallel mode here.
It's permissible to start and end subtransactions while in parallel
mode, as long as no new XIDs or command IDs are assigned." One
additional thing that might (or might not) be worth mentioning or
checking for here is that the leader shouldn't try to reduce the
height of the transaction state stack to anything less than what it
was when the parallel operation started; if it wants to do that, it
needs to clean up the parallel workers and exit parallel mode first.
Similarly a worker shouldn't ever end the toplevel transaction except
during backend cleanup.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2024-03-22 15:45:05 Re: Add Index-level REINDEX with multiple jobs
Previous Message David Christensen 2024-03-22 15:39:10 Re: Adding comments to help understand psql hidden queries