On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 11:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 10:36 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> Log Message:
> >>> -----------
> >>> Tune GetSnapshotData() during Hot Standby by avoiding loop
> >>> through normal backends. Makes code clearer also, since we
> >>> avoid various Assert()s. Performance of snapshots taken
> >>> during recovery no longer depends upon number of read-only
> >>> backends.
> >> I think there's a little race condition there.
> >> snapshot->takenDuringRecovery is set before acquiring ProcArrayLock, so
> >> it's possible that by the time we acquire the lock, we're no longer in
> >> recovery. So this can happen:
> >>
> >> 1. Backend A starts to take a snapshot, while we're still in recovery.
> >> takenDuringRecovery is assigned true.
> >> 2. Recovery ends, and a normal transaction X begins in backend B.
> >> 3. A skips scanning ProcArray because takenDuringRecovery is true.
> >>
> >> The snapshot doesn't include X, so any changes done in that transaction
> >> will not be visible to the snapshot while the transaction is still
> >> running, but will be after it commits.
> >>
> >> Of course, it's highly improbable for 2. to happen, but it's there.
> >
> > The order of events is as you say, though I don't see the problem. The
> > new xids will be beyond xmax and would be filtered out even if we did
> > scan the procs, so they will be treated as running, which they are. Xmax
> > will not have advanced since that relies on completed transactions, not
> > started ones.
>
> Good point. However, it is theoretically possible that yet another
> transaction starts and commits in that same window, bumping xmax.
If the snapshotting backend (#1) froze at the exact point between one
CPU instruction and the next, during which time recovery ends, two new
sessions connect, two new write transactions start (#2 and #3), they
begin to write data and so assign xids, then write WAL, then the #3
writes commit record into WAL, flushes disk (maybe), updates clog and
then is granted procarraylock in exclusive mode before snapshotting
backend attempts to do so, while #2 keeps running.
Yes, it does seem theoretically possible, at that one exact point in
time, never to be repeated.
It doesn't seem to be something we should place highly on the list of
events we need protection from, does it?
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
