From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Relations being opened without any lock whatever
In-reply-to: <eda81aff-89c2-aed4-2997-548d1b4615e5@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <2038.1538335244@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <eda81aff-89c2-aed4-2997-548d1b4615e5@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Comments: In-reply-to Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	message dated "Mon, 01 Oct 2018 16:19:58 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <21003.1538400558.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:29:18 -0400
Message-ID: <21004.1538400558@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> On 2018/10/01 4:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Running the regression tests with the patch I showed in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16565.1538327894@sss.pgh.pa.us

> Maybe you've noticed but the relation_open calls coming from bootstrap.c
> all pass NoLock which trigger the WARNING:

Yeah, I'd missed noticing that at the time I posted that patch, but I
sure noticed after changing the WARNING to an Assert ;-)

> Do we need to do something about that, like teaching boot_openrel() and
> gettype() in bootstrap.c to pass AccessShareLock instead of NoLock?

No, bootstrap mode has no need for locking.  I think the right fix is
just to skip the check:
 
+	/*
+	 * If we didn't get the lock ourselves, assert that caller holds one,
+	 * except in bootstrap mode where no locks are used.
+	 */
+	Assert(lockmode != NoLock ||
+		   IsBootstrapProcessingMode() ||
+		   CheckRelationLockedByMe(r, AccessShareLock, true));

It's possible that at some point we'd decide to make bootstrap mode
do locking the same as normal mode, but that's not a change I want
to make as part of this patch.

			regards, tom lane