Re: hot_standby_feedback vs excludeVacuum and snapshots

On 6 July 2018 at 03:30, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>>>     However, 49bff5300d527 also introduced a similar bug where subtransaction
>>>     commit would fail to release an AccessExclusiveLock, leaving the lock to
>>>     be removed sometimes early and sometimes late. This commit fixes
>>>     that bug also. Backpatch to PG10 needed.
>>
>> Subtransaction commit is too early to release an arbitrary
>> AccessExclusiveLock.  The primary releases every AccessExclusiveLock at
>> top-level transaction commit, top-level transaction abort, or subtransaction
>> abort.  CommitSubTransaction() doesn't do that; it transfers locks to the
>> parent sub(xact).  Standby nodes can't safely remove an arbitrary lock earlier
>> than the primary would.
>
> But we don't release locks acquired by committing subxacts until the
> top level xact commits.  Perhaps that's what the git commit message
> meant by "early", as opposed to "late" meaning when
> StandbyReleaseOldLocks() next runs because an XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS
> record is replayed?

Locks held by subtransactions were not released at the correct timing
of top-level commit; they are now.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services