| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Potential deadlock in pgaio_io_wait() |
| Date: | 2025-10-10 01:44:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+Hh7u3YpPLKQS+B7KJu0Bw99EjhuPuvBRVccDfgod95g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 2:53 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I just independently noticed this same issue, wrote a little test to
> reproduce it, and was about to report it, when I noticed that you found
> this already. Attached is the repro script.
Nice. Thanks!
> Both of the proposed patches seem fine to me. I'm inclined to go with
> the first patch (v2-0001-aio-Fix-pgaio_io_wait-for-staged-IOs.patch),
> without the extra optimization, unless we can actually measure a
> performance difference.
I like the second one slightly more, but I'm also happy to be
outvoted. I'm working on committing the first one, but I ran into a
couple of CI failures[1] that I haven't understood yet. It could be
my patch's fault or turn out to be something already in the tree...
looking into that...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ocean_li_996 | 2025-10-10 03:01:19 | Re:BUG #19070: issue with DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY on a hash partition table |
| Previous Message | Yuri Zamyatin | 2025-10-10 01:34:47 | Re: BUG #19078: Segfaults in tts_minimal_store_tuple() following pg_upgrade |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-10-10 02:03:06 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-10-10 01:02:26 | Re: speedup COPY TO for partitioned table. |