Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2026-01-20 21:13:10 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 20/01/2026 19:46, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2026-01-20 10:43:09 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > I was able to reproduce and debug that. The patch made the assumption that
> > > when a process is about to exit, in ShutdownPostgres(), it can only have
> > > session-level locks left, after we have done AbortOutOfAnyTransaction().
> > > That assumption did not hold, because if proc_exit() is called while we're
> > > waiting on a lock, the lock is not yet registered with the resource owner
> > > (or if it's a session lock, it's not yet added to the 'session_locks' list).
> > > Therefore, when ShutdownPostgres() called AbortOutOfAnyTransaction() and
> > > LockReleaseSession(USER_LOCKMETHOD), it would not clean up the lock objects
> > > for the lock we were waiting on. That's pretty straightforward to fix by
> > > also calling LockErrorCleanup() from ShutdownPostgres(). Alternatively,
> > > perhaps we should register the lock with the resource owner earlier.
> >
> > Hm. There is a LockErrorCleanup() in AbortTransaction(), why does that not
> > suffice? If we're in the middle of a lock acquisition, we should be inside a
> > transaction, and thus the AbortOutOfAnyTransaction() should call
> > AbortTransaction(), which in turn should call LockErrorCleanup().
>
> Session locks can be acquired outside a transaction. In the failing test,
> it's a parallel apply worker blocked on a pg_lock_transaction() call.

(it's pa_lock_transaction(), if others are looking)

Hm. Don't we generally kind of assume that this kind of thing happens at least
in a transaction command, even if it's not in an explicit transaction?



> > It's not even complete within ProcessInterrupts(), from what I can
> > tell - don't we e.g. need to do LockErrorCleanup() for the FATAL due
> > to TransactionTimeout or ClientConnectionLost?
>
> I'm not convinced that any of those calls in ProcessInterrupts() are needed.
> If the process is exiting with FATAL or proc_exit, the ShutdownPostgres exit
> callback should release the lock. (On 'master', thanks to LockReleaseAll(),
> and with this patch, thanks to the LockErrorCleanup() call). And on ERROR,
> transaction abort should likewise clean it up. Is it somehow important to
> clean up the awaited lock earlier, before the error processing starts?

I'm not sure either - I wonder if it's related to issues with not actually
being in a transaction? In which case we'd not reach AbortTransaction(). But
then we should really also not have an in-progress lock acquisition to be
cleaned up...


Interestingly, they were added in the current position by

commit 2b3a8b20c2d
Author: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>
Date:   2015-02-02 17:08:45 +0200

    Be more careful to not lose sync in the FE/BE protocol.

Reviewed, among others, by a certain Mr. Freund.


Before that the LockErrorCleanup() calls were in the signal handlers
themselves, with this comment:
    LockErrorCleanup(); /* prevent CheckDeadLock from running */


I lost interest in hunting this down by 2008's 6322e84430e as by then none of
the surrounding code looks similar enough to make it really interesting.


Greetings,

Andres Freund