Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 11:22:33 -0800
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Francesco Degrassi <francesco.degrassi@optionfactory.net>,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at
 parallel query start
Message-ID: <20241107192233.94.nmisch@google.com>
References: 
 <CAC-SaSzHUKT=vZJ8MPxYdC_URPfax+yoA1hKTcF4ROz_Q6z0_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240918030159.2a.nmisch@google.com>
 <1737570.1726633422@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20240918050434.13.nmisch@google.com>
 <3441950.1730999841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3441950.1730999841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20241107192233.94.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 12:17:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:23:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I do not have much faith in this patch.  It assumes that the
> >> condition "interrupts can be processed" is the same at plan time and
> >> execution time.  For plans extracted from the plan cache, there seems
> >> little reason to assume that must be true.  The proposed test case
> >> cannot trigger that (today anyway) because SQL-language functions
> >> don't deal in cached plans, but I suspect it could be broken with a
> >> test case using a plpgsql function instead.
> 
> > Good point.  I missed that.
> 
> While working on the release notes, I noticed that nothing further
> got done about this concern.  What do you think of adding a test
> somewhere early in executor startup, to the effect of
> 
> 	if (!INTERRUPTS_CAN_BE_PROCESSED())
> 	    ereport(ERROR,
> 	            (errmsg("cannot start a query with interrupts disabled")));
> 
> It's definitely a band-aid, but it seems better than leaving
> things at the status quo.

That would fire in queries that don't error or hang today, so I think that
would be worse than the status quo.

This thread's previous commit just forced a serial plan.  The executor
counterpart would look like having the executor do what it does when there are
no free worker slots.