Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY5FMn-OESA9WSbMNXu4DyQFUyVPdac72H-x5f2ytoVVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>>   The
>> bad news, to borrow a phrase from Peter Geoghegan, is that it's an
>> unprincipled deadlock; a user confronted with the news that her
>> parallel scan has self-deadlocked will be justifiably dismayed.
>
> You seem to be raising this as a show-stopping problem, and I'm not
> convinced that it is.

Well, what I'm saying is that at very minimum we have to be able
detect deadlocks, and we have two plausible designs for avoiding that:

1. Modify the deadlock detector to know about lock groups.

2. Propagate pre-existing locks from the user backend to all the workers.

I initially proposed #1, but now I think #2 solves more of the
problems for less code.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Bugfix and new feature for PGXS
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5)