From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17122: panic on prepare with subsequent pg_advisory_lock() and pg_advisory_xact_lock_shared()
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 12:31:32 +0900
Message-ID: <YP4slEQhxQnKNbMB@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1267153.1627163097@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <17122-04f3c32098a62233@postgresql.org>
<924498.1627056766@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1267153.1627163097@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 05:44:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The reason why not is that the code that's meant to detect that is
> just fundamentally inadequate. It's examining individual LOCALLOCK
> entries to detect conflicts, but we keep separate LOCALLOCK entries
> for different lockmodes on the same object. So pg_advisory_lock()
> creates an entry with lockmode ExclusiveLock, while
> pg_advisory_xact_lock_shared() creates a different entry with lockmode
> AccessShareLock. But they are pointing at the same PROCLOCK, and the
> restriction we're dealing with here applies at the PROCLOCK level.
For the archives: this has been applied as of 6310809.
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17122: panic on prepare with subsequent pg_advisory_lock() and pg_advisory_xact_lock_shared()
In-Reply-To: <YP4slEQhxQnKNbMB@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox