Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:01:11 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Patrick =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E4hlin?= <me@packi.ch>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: BUG #18996: Assertion fails in waiteventset.c when dropping
 database in single mode in PG18
Message-ID: <aILXVzYNhVm-yl7o@paquier.xyz>
References: <18996-3a2744c8140488de@postgresql.org>
 <32f9406b-d3c7-4dd4-9027-d72c116d199d@packi.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JiicBFZw2KAbNtAK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <32f9406b-d3c7-4dd4-9027-d72c116d199d@packi.ch>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aILXVzYNhVm-yl7o%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--JiicBFZw2KAbNtAK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Patrick St=E4hlin wrote:
> We, or rather git bisect, traced it down to commit
> 84e5b2f07a5e8ba983ff0f6e71b063b27f45f346 that added a new wait event in
> InitializeLatchWaitSet if we're running under postmaster but then didn't =
add
> the same check in WaitLatch and always referenced it. This probably caused
> the assert later on, when we were waiting on the ProcBarrier.
>=20
> I've attached a patch based on REL_18_STABLE that seems to fix the issue =
for
> us and passes the selftests.

That's the same kind of single-user-mode shortcut we have in the past
for similar issues, like 0ce5cf2ef24f for example.

@@ -187,9 +187,10 @@ WaitLatch(Latch *latch, int wakeEvents, long timeout,
     if (!(wakeEvents & WL_LATCH_SET))
         latch =3D NULL;
     ModifyWaitEvent(LatchWaitSet, LatchWaitSetLatchPos, WL_LATCH_SET, latc=
h);
-    ModifyWaitEvent(LatchWaitSet, LatchWaitSetPostmasterDeathPos,
-                    (wakeEvents & (WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH | WL_POSTMASTER_DEA=
TH)),
-                    NULL);
+    if (IsUnderPostmaster)
+        ModifyWaitEvent(LatchWaitSet, LatchWaitSetPostmasterDeathPos,
+                        (wakeEvents & (WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH | WL_POSTMASTER=
_DEATH)),
+                        NULL);

Yeah, that looks good to me.  It does not make sense to rely on that
for !IsUnderPostmaster, which is something that we obviously support
in WaitLatch() based on the assertion a couple of lines above while
the initialization happens.  Will fix, thanks for the report!
--
Michael

--JiicBFZw2KAbNtAK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAmiC11cACgkQnvQgOdby
QH3ong/9GBXiQwrHq5HfHNxrxLAq7U+Qh+9WEWMiWZsm+l3Lm1VHli7iRpfBXjtM
TTysmH76/AnqJACnJ0deY3AVYiaNv5GK3o133l1CIhBlUFIvlu9a39WA//qLqVJv
aREghUvkHgJc4mUH4ncIpkscJAALX7mbsAFXxXZHHgrL4UnnS+2TqvkdROz0aIFP
rsqyjnSAtGGVF68Q4vx7s/jmC6t0Ox3jfalOFj/rQ5fRQRLhTYizNuOPEsqoLqtV
Zxf6V6j3B0VDD92Nmpi1wPYVeQuBKGJSPebTrpIMR1+uyyotzupdrnSWmEGErhD2
n2LLuS0Y4FqmYPRnJMZD1w2AIp2UKNq5Jk5sOEfeZ4BFY8cPn4R13q5hGCLWhdQG
WHk8ri+PtGTZqm1G2ViLXneMTZmg8BpuRrobztmTECzcuHZ6YlESebSz6AEZufRI
XHNai1ZmxE3KKUq7KwT0LXC4UfvILObk9NTE2uBWqr9oQSBaumTk6J4x84nWysU3
SSAdf6YUut6SJxQ5vy9VYUmIHMRLnx1mIQmYiiYyx3gl8zlfGbqO4jIIsWwrTbgQ
jpIt/wRfGiHm4Fz3cASczyU/bg0xsJq2Gma0j0Lf3uq72/8R0M26zN0JJlm0FMuA
fmbvHSW3IBOxx8W8domMvQcU6130My2UZjl0EC4x91qrge5bgjA=
=Opzr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--JiicBFZw2KAbNtAK--