Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1539738.1660683747@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock
Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I had that thought too, but I don't *think* it's the case. This
> function acquires a lock on the oldest bucket page, then on the new
> bucket page. We could deadlock if someone who holds a pin on the new
> bucket page tries to take a content lock on the old bucket page. But
> who would do that? The new bucket page isn't yet linked from the
> metapage at this point, so no scan should do that. There can be no
> concurrent writers during replay. I think that if someone else has the
> new page pinned they probably should not be taking content locks on
> other buffers at the same time.
Agreed, the core code shouldn't do that, but somebody doing random stuff
with pageinspect functions could probably make a query do this.
See [1]; unless we're going to reject that bug with "don't do that",
I'm not too comfortable with this line of reasoning.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/17568-ef121b956ec1559c%40postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: