On 04/12/2014 05:03 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> >If we don't, aren't we letting other backends see non-self-consistent
>> >state in regards to who holds which locks, for example?
> I think that actually works out ok, because the locks aren't owned by
> xids/xacts, but procs. Otherwise we'd be in deep trouble in
> CommitTransaction() as well where ProcArrayEndTransaction() clearing
> that state.
> After the whole xid transfer, there's PostPrepare_Locks() transferring
> the locks.
Right.
However, I just noticed that there's a race condition between PREPARE
TRANSACTION and COMMIT/ROLLBACK PREPARED. PostPrepare_Locks runs after
the prepared transaction is already marked as fully prepared. That means
that by the time we get to PostPrepare_Locks, another backend might
already have finished and removed the prepared transaction. That leads
to a PANIC (put a breakpoint just before PostPrepare_Locks):
postgres=# commit prepared 'foo';
PANIC: failed to re-find shared proclock object
PANIC: failed to re-find shared proclock object
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
FinishPrepareTransaction reads the list of locks from the two-phase
state file, but PANICs when it doesn't find the corresponding locks in
the lock manager (because PostPrepare_Locks hasn't transfered them to
the dummy PGPROC yet).
I think we'll need to transfer of the locks earlier, before the
transaction is marked as fully prepared. I'll take a closer look at this
tomorrow.
- Heikki
