Hi Andres,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:33 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I think such a function would still have to integrate enough with the lock
> manager infrastructure to participate in the deadlock detector. Otherwise I
> think you'd trivially end up with loads of deadlocks.
Could you elaborate on which unusual deadlock concerns arise? To be
clear, WaitForLockers() is an existing function in lmgr.c
(https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/216a784829c2c5f03ab0c43e009126cbb819e9b2/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lmgr.c#L986),
and naively it seems like we mostly just need to call it. To my very
limited understanding, from looking at the existing callers and the
implementation of LOCK, that would look something like this
(assuming we're in a SQL command like LOCK and calling unmodified
WaitForLockers() with a single table):
1. Call something like RangeVarGetRelidExtended() with AccessShareLock
to ensure the table is not dropped and obtain the table oid
2. Use SET_LOCKTAG_RELATION() to construct the lock tag from the oid
3. Call WaitForLockers(), which internally calls GetLockConflicts() and
VirtualXactLock(). These certainly take plenty of locks of various types,
and will likely sleep in LockAcquire() waiting for transactions to finish,
but there don't seem to be any unusual pre/postconditions, nor do we
hold any unusual locks already.
Obviously a deadlock is possible if transactions end up waiting for each
other, just as when taking table or row locks, etc., but it seems like this
would be detected as usual?