parallel restore item dependencies - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject parallel restore item dependencies
Date
Msg-id 49B86539.2030509@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: parallel restore item dependencies  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
OK, I've worked out why I am seeing deadlocks etc. from parallel restore 
on FK items.

In my original patch, I looked at all the dependencies of a candidate 
item ansd compared them with the dependencies of the running items to 
see if there was a potential locking clash. However, Tom in his 
admirable reworking of my patch, restricted the list of potential 
clashing items (lockDeps) to "TABLE" items, if any. This would probably 
have been ok if we hadn't just beforehand transferred all TABLE 
dependencies in POST_DATA items to the corresponding TABLE DATA item. 
The result is that we get empty lockDeps lists on all items - I'm 
surprised we haven't had more complaints about deadlock or failing locks.

A simple fix that would probably work would be to adjust the filter to 
include TABLE DATA items, so the relevant statement would read:
       if (tocsByDumpId[depid - 1] &&           (strcmp(tocsByDumpId[depid - 1]->desc, "TABLE") == 0 ||
strcmp(tocsByDumpId[depid- 1]->desc, "TABLE DATA") == 0))           lockids[nlockids++] = depid;
 

Perhaps a better fix would move the code that sets up the lockDeps so 
that it runs before we adjust the dependencies.

I'm moderately confident that either of these fixes will work, but I 
think this demonstrates the need for lots of testing, especially with 
complex data sets that have lots of dependencies and potentially 
deadlocking items.

thoughts?

cheers

andrew




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1710)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?