On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 04:55:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Tom's right to be skeptical of my theory, because it would require a
> > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() outside of a transaction block in one of the
> > pathways that use session-level locks, and I can't find one.
>
> More to the point: session-level locks are released on error. The only
> way to get out of a transaction while still holding one is for the
> VACUUM-or-whichever-command code to deliberately commit and exit while
> still holding it. An error exit path would release the lock.
>
> > OTOH, I'm skeptical of the theory that this involves userlocks,
> > because this whole thread started because of a complaint about lock
> > 0/1260/0 already being held. That ain't no userlock.
>
> Yeah, and for that matter it seems to let VACUUM off the hook too.
> If we assume that the reported object ID is non-corrupt (and if it's
> always the same, that seems like the way to bet) then this is a lock
> on pg_authid.
>
> Hmmm ... could the pathway involve an error exit from client
> authentication? We're still finding bugs in the 9.0 rewrite of
> auth-time database access.
It does not seem restricted to pg_authid:
2011-08-24 18:35:57.445 24987 c23 apps ERROR: lock AccessShareLock on object 16403/2615/0
And I think I've seen it on other tables too.
-dg
--
David Gould daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
