Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Spurious standby query cancellations

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Spurious standby query cancellations
Date: 2015-09-24 06:33:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 14 September 2015 at 12:00, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It's now possible to fix this by putting a lock wait on the actual lock
>>> request, which wasn't available when I first wrote that, hence the crappy
>>> wait loop. Using the timeout handler would now be the preferred way to
>>> solve this. We can backpatch that to 9.3 if needed, where they were
>>> introduced.
>>> There's an example of how to use lock waits further down
>>> on ResolveRecoveryConflictWithBufferPin(). Could you have a look at doing
>>> it that way?
>> It looks like this will take some major surgery.  The heavy weight lock
>> manager doesn't play well with others when it comes to timeouts other than
>> its own.  LockBufferForCleanup is a simple retry loop, but the lock manager
>> is much more complicated than that.
> Not sure I understand this objection. I can't see a reason that my
> proposal wouldn't work.

On further thought, neither do I.  The attached patch inverts
to be called back from the lmgr code so that is it like
code.  It does not try to cancel the conflicting lock holders from the
signal handler, rather it just loops an extra time and cancels the
transactions on the next call.

It looks like the deadlock detection is adequately handled within normal
lmgr code within the back-ends of the other parties to the deadlock, so I
didn't do a timeout for deadlock detection purposes.



Attachment: standby_lock_cancel_v2.patch
Description: text/x-patch (10.5 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeevan ChalkeDate: 2015-09-24 06:57:28
Subject: Re: TEXT vs VARCHAR join qual push down diffrence, bug or expected?
Previous:From: Thomas KellererDate: 2015-09-24 06:20:09
Subject: Re: No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group