Re: On login trigger: take three

From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Mikhail Gribkov <youzhick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ivan Panchenko <wao(at)mail(dot)ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: On login trigger: take three
Date: 2023-10-13 08:26:45
Message-ID: CAPpHfdtOd2eiyE_wN2rfWconeH0BR3gk2n_uQWf6RQvBDvpPBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:18 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:54 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 8:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > Doesn't that mean that if you create the first login trigger in a
> > > database and leave the transaction open, nobody can connect to that
> > > database until the transaction ends?
> >
> > It doesn't mean that, because when trying to reset the flag v44 does
> > conditional lock. So, if another transaction is holding the log we
> > will just skip resetting the flag. So, the flag will be cleared on
> > the first connection after that transaction ends.
>
> But in the scenario I am describing the flag is being set, not reset.

Sorry, it seems I just missed some logical steps. Imagine, that
transaction A created the first login trigger and hangs open. Then
the new connection B sees no visible triggers yet, but dathasloginevt
flag is set. Therefore, connection B tries conditional lock but just
gives up because the lock is held by transaction A.

Also, note that the lock has been just some lock with a custom tag.
It doesn't effectively block the database. You may think about it as
of custom advisory lock.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2023-10-13 08:33:23 Re: pg_upgrade's interaction with pg_resetwal seems confusing
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-10-13 08:07:00 Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions