summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/include/pg_config_manual.h
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorFujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>2021-01-06 12:39:18 +0900
committerFujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>2021-01-06 12:39:18 +0900
commit8900b5a9d59a645b3485f5b046c4c7871b2c4026 (patch)
tree87e55d7e0c47c3d0506c7bb7782355c5c22c0d37 /src/include/pg_config_manual.h
parente02e840ff7787d4798fca9f6a5b8b3657f45cf0c (diff)
downloadpostgresql-8900b5a9d59a645b3485f5b046c4c7871b2c4026.tar.gz
Detect the deadlocks between backends and the startup process.
The deadlocks that the recovery conflict on lock is involved in can happen between hot-standby backends and the startup process. If a backend takes an access exclusive lock on the table and which finally triggers the deadlock, that deadlock can be detected as expected. On the other hand, previously, if the startup process took an access exclusive lock and which finally triggered the deadlock, that deadlock could not be detected and could remain even after deadlock_timeout passed. This is a bug. The cause of this bug was that the code for handling the recovery conflict on lock didn't take care of deadlock case at all. It assumed that deadlocks involving the startup process and backends were able to be detected by the deadlock detector invoked within backends. But this assumption was incorrect. The startup process also should have invoked the deadlock detector if necessary. To fix this bug, this commit makes the startup process invoke the deadlock detector if deadlock_timeout is reached while handling the recovery conflict on lock. Specifically, in that case, the startup process requests all the backends holding the conflicting locks to check themselves for deadlocks. Back-patch to v9.6. v9.5 has also this bug, but per discussion we decided not to back-patch the fix to v9.5. Because v9.5 doesn't have some infrastructure codes (e.g., 37c54863cf) that this bug fix patch depends on. We can apply those codes for the back-patch, but since the next minor version release is the final one for v9.5, it's risky to do that. If we unexpectedly introduce new bug to v9.5 by the back-patch, there is no chance to fix that. We determined that the back-patch to v9.5 would give more risk than gain. Author: Fujii Masao Reviewed-by: Bertrand Drouvot, Masahiko Sawada, Kyotaro Horiguchi Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4041d6b6-cf24-a120-36fa-1294220f8243@oss.nttdata.com
Diffstat (limited to 'src/include/pg_config_manual.h')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions