From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Oleksii Kliukin <alexk@hintbits.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:04:41 -0400
Message-ID: <20190616190441.GA30993@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190615224713.GA9414@alvherre.pgsql>
On 2019-Jun-15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> But that's not the danger ... with the current coding, it's initialized
> to false every time through that block; that means the tuple lock will
> never be skipped if we jump back to l3. So the danger is that the first
> iteration sets the variable, then jumps back; second iteration
> initializes the variable again, so instead of skipping the lock, it
> takes it, causing a spurious deadlock.
So, I'm too lazy today to generate a case that fully reproduces the
deadlock, because you need to stall 's2' a little bit using the
well-known advisory lock trick, but this one hits the code that would
re-initialize the variable.
I'm going to push the change of lifetime of the variable for now.
setup
{
drop table if exists tlu_job;
create table tlu_job (id integer primary key, name text);
insert into tlu_job values(1, 'a');
}
teardown
{
drop table tlu_job;
}
session "s0"
setup { begin; set deadlock_timeout=1}
step "s0_fornokeyupdate" { select id from tlu_job where id = 1 for no key update; }
step "s0_update" { update tlu_job set name = 's0' where id = 1; }
step "s0_commit" { commit; }
session "s1"
setup { begin; set deadlock_timeout=1}
step "s1_for_key_share" { select id from tlu_job where id = 1 for key share; }
step "s1_for_update" { select id from tlu_job where id = 1 for update; }
step "s1_rollback" { rollback; }
session "s2"
setup { begin; set deadlock_timeout=1}
step "s2_for_key_share" { select id from tlu_job where id = 1 for key share; }
step "s2_for_share" { select id from tlu_job where id = 1 for share; }
step "s2_rollback" { rollback; }
session "s3"
setup { begin; set deadlock_timeout=1}
step "s3_update" { update tlu_job set name = 'c' where id = 1; }
step "s3_rollback" { rollback; }
permutation "s1_for_key_share" "s2_for_key_share" "s0_fornokeyupdate" "s2_for_share" "s0_update" "s0_commit" "s1_rollback" "s2_rollback" "s3_rollback"
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
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-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, alexk@hintbits.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock
In-Reply-To: <20190616190441.GA30993@alvherre.pgsql>
* 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