Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:37:36 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock
Message-ID: <20190614153736.GA21626@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <28491.1560526373@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jun-14, Tom Lane wrote:

> I wrote:
> >> Hm, I don't get that warning.  Does this patch silence it, please?
> 
> > Uh, no patch attached?  But initializing the variable where it's
> > declared would certainly silence it.
> 
> BTW, after looking around a bit I wonder if this complaint isn't
> exposing an actual logic bug.  Shouldn't skip_tuple_lock have
> a lifetime similar to first_time?

I think you're right.  I should come up with a test case that exercises
that case.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services