Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock
| От | Oleksii Kliukin |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2A0C6E60-661D-47BB-888C-F557D4E7458A@hintbits.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2019-Jun-18, Oleksii Kliukin wrote: > >> Sorry, I was confused, as I was looking only at >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=de87a084c0a5ac927017cd0834b33a932651cfc9 >> >> without taking your subsequent commit that silences compiler warnings at >> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=3da73d6839dc47f1f47ca57974bf28e5abd9b572 >> into consideration. With that commit, the danger is indeed in resetting the >> skip mechanism on each jump and potentially causing deadlocks. > > Yeah, I understand the confusion. > > Anyway, as bugs go, this one seems pretty benign. It would result in a > unexplained deadlock, very rarely, and only for people who use a very > strange locking pattern that includes (row-level) lock upgrades. I > think it also requires aborted savepoints too, though I don't rule out > the possibility that there might be a way to reproduce this without > that. > > I pushed the patch again just now, with the new permutation. Thank you very much for working on it and committing the fix! Cheers, Oleksii
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: