Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:16:50 -0800
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Fujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15
Message-ID: <20230223231650.GB743455@nathanxps13>
References: <Y+Q2qCecB8zcqF9S@paquier.xyz>
 <20230209002413.GA603595@nathanxps13>
 <CA+TgmobE6rRs-tMArr733y9VucgNA5Nd9_qYgEVWjJDwHBwP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3907196.1675957889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoY6xxDdZ1YJjMb27Ei7qgFcbu=__WtDX_cOd3GQ5uvxWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230209192952.jvx56yuutlxuvjjf@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <20230214174755.GA1348509@nathanxps13>
 <Y/QKT/vgQajgO/CU@paquier.xyz>
 <20230221045039.GA4026654@nathanxps13>
 <CA+hUKGJmM+3BWUrF=CXQ8p7gaS9JcUBB3VZ_R5CT6H6iY+t92g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKGJmM+3BWUrF=CXQ8p7gaS9JcUBB3VZ_R5CT6H6iY+t92g@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230223231650.GB743455%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:48:10PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 5:50 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:03:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> > Perhaps beginning a new thread with a patch and a summary would be
>> > better at this stage?  Another thing I am wondering is if it could be
>> > possible to test that rather reliably.  I have been playing with a few
>> > scenarios like holding the system() call for a bit with hardcoded
>> > sleep()s, without much success.  I'll try harder on that part..  It's
>> > been mentioned as well that we could just move away from system() in
>> > the long-term.
>>
>> I'm happy to create a new thread if needed, but I can't tell if there is
>> any interest in this stopgap/back-branch fix.  Perhaps we should just jump
>> straight to the long-term fix that Thomas is looking into.
> 
> Unfortunately the latch-friendly subprocess module proposal I was
> talking about would be for 17.  I may post a thread fairly soon with
> design ideas + list of problems and decision points as I see them, and
> hopefully some sketch code, but it won't be a proposal for [/me checks
> calendar] next week's commitfest and probably wouldn't be appropriate
> in a final commitfest anyway, and I also have some other existing
> stuff to clear first.  So please do continue with the stopgap ideas.

I've created a new thread for the stopgap fix [0].

[0] https://postgr.es/m/20230223231503.GA743455%40nathanxps13

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com