On 6/20/17 19:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/19/17 22:54, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> It seems to me we could just take a stronger lock around
>>> RemoveSubscriptionRel(), so that workers can't write in there concurrently.
>>
>> Since we reduced the lock level of updating pg_subscription_rel by
>> commit 521fd4795e3e the same deadlock issue will appear if we just
>> take a stronger lock level.
>
> I was thinking about a more refined approach, like in the attached
> patch. It just changes the locking when in DropSubscription(), so that
> that doesn't fail if workers are doing stuff concurrently. Everything
> else stays the same.
The alternative is that we use the LockSharedObject() approach that was
already alluded to, like in the attached patch. Both approaches would
work equally fine AFAICT.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
