Re: Help understanding SIReadLock growing without bound on completed transaction - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Help understanding SIReadLock growing without bound on completed transaction
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGKaHBNwBr5gzsRj4FubZ_Ga7-Hp6dzWxQHvXwq1RYGJsQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Help understanding SIReadLock growing without bound on completedtransaction  ("Mike Klaas" <mike@superhuman.com>)
Responses Re: Help understanding SIReadLock growing without bound oncompleted transaction  ("Mike Klaas" <mike@superhuman.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:48 AM Mike Klaas <mike@superhuman.com> wrote:
> It's my understanding that these locks should be cleared when there are no conflicting transactions.  These locks had
existedfor > 1 week and we have no transactions that last more than a few seconds (the oldest transaction in
pg_stat_activityis always < 1minute old). 
> Why would a transaction that is finished continue accumulating locks over time?

Predicate locks are released by ClearOldPredicateLocks(), which
releases SERIALIZABLEXACTs once they are no longer interesting.  It
has a  conservative idea of what is no longer interesting: it waits
until the lowest xmin across active serializable snapshots is >= the
transaction's finishedBefore xid, which was the system's next xid (an
xid that hasn't been used yet*) at the time the SERIALIZABLEXACT
committed.  One implication of this scheme is that SERIALIZABLEXACTs
are cleaned up in commit order.  If you somehow got into a state where
a few of them were being kept around for a long time, but others
committed later were being cleaned up (which I suppose must be the
case or your system would be complaining about running out of
SERIALIZABLEXACTs), that might imply that there is a rare leak
somewhere in this scheme.  In the past I have wondered if there might
be a problem with wraparound in the xid tracking for finished
transactions, but I haven't worked out the details (transaction ID
wraparound is both figuratively and literally the Ground Hog Day of
PostgreSQL bug surfaces).

*Interestingly, it takes an unlocked view of that value, but that
doesn't seem relevant here; it could see a value that's too low, not
too high.



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: query, probably needs window functions
Next
From: Richard Suematsu
Date:
Subject: libgeotiff missing