Thread: CIC and deadlocks
<br />Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ?<br />I saw one with VACUUM today. But I think it can happenwith other<br />commands like VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, CREATE INDEX<br />CONCURRENTLY and so on. These commands conflicton the <br />ShareUpdateExclusiveLock held by CIC and hence would wait for<br />CIC to release the lock. At the sametime, CIC would wait for these<br />transactions to complete.<br clear="all" /><br />We know that these commands arerun in a separate transaction <br />and do not do any index fetches or inserts/updates. So in principle<br />CIC neednot wait for these transactions to complete in any<br />of its waits. May be we can skip waits on the transactions that<br/>are running one of these commands. <br /><br />Is it something worth doing ?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Pavan<br /><br/>-- <br /><br />EnterpriseDB <a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a>
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 17:45 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ? > I saw one with VACUUM today. But I think it can happen with other > commands like VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, CREATE INDEX > CONCURRENTLY and so on. These commands conflict on the > ShareUpdateExclusiveLock held by CIC and hence would wait for > CIC to release the lock. At the same time, CIC would wait for these > transactions to complete. > > We know that these commands are run in a separate transaction > and do not do any index fetches or inserts/updates. So in principle > CIC need not wait for these transactions to complete in any > of its waits. May be we can skip waits on the transactions that > are running one of these commands. Yes, because I proposed it already. :-) "utility transactions" in - Latest plans for Utilities with HOT -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ?
Can you give a specific example? The deadlock code will grant locks
out-of-order in cases where the alternative is to abort somebody.
I think you may be describing a missed opportunity in that logic,
more than a reason to add still another fragile assumption for HOT.
regards, tom lane
On 3/31/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
txn1 - CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (takes ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
txn2 - VACUUM ANALYZE (waits on ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
tnx1 - waits for txn2 to complete in the second phase of CIC
deadlock!
Lazy VACUUM is safe because we don't include "inVacuum" transactions
in the snapshot and hence don't wait for it in CIC. I haven't checked, but
VACUUM FULL would also deadlock.
Not sure what you are referring to. But I shall keep this in mind.
Thanks,
Pavan
-- "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ?
Can you give a specific example?
txn1 - CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (takes ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
txn2 - VACUUM ANALYZE (waits on ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
tnx1 - waits for txn2 to complete in the second phase of CIC
deadlock!
Lazy VACUUM is safe because we don't include "inVacuum" transactions
in the snapshot and hence don't wait for it in CIC. I haven't checked, but
VACUUM FULL would also deadlock.
I think you may be describing a missed opportunity in that logic,
more than a reason to add still another fragile assumption for HOT.
Not sure what you are referring to. But I shall keep this in mind.
Thanks,
Pavan
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3/31/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Can you give a specific example?
> txn1 - CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (takes ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
> txn2 - VACUUM ANALYZE (waits on ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
> tnx1 - waits for txn2 to complete in the second phase of CIC
Oh, it's the cleanup wait you're worried about.
> Lazy VACUUM is safe because we don't include "inVacuum" transactions
> in the snapshot and hence don't wait for it in CIC.
Hmm ... only if it's already set inVacuum true ... there's a window
where it has not.
I wonder whether we could change CIC so that the "reference
snapshot" lists only transactions that are running and have already
determined their serializable snapshot (ie, have set proc->xmin).
Xacts that haven't yet done that can be ignored because they couldn't
possibly see the dead tuples we're worried about, no?
Then we could rearrange the order of operations in vacuum_rel so
that we lock the target rel before we acquire a snapshot. Then
a vacuum waiting for the CIC cannot cause a deadlock.
Multi-rel CLUSTER could be changed the same way. I'm not particularly
worried about single-rel CLUSTER, only stuff that would be reasonable
to launch from background maintenance tasks.
[ thinks... ] Actually, it seems risky to omit xids from the reference
snapshot; that could perhaps screw up the index insertions. But we
could look in the procArray to see if the xid still exists and has set
an xmin before we actually wait for it.
regards, tom lane
On 3/31/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Yes, it may work. Do we need to take some extra care because
proc-xmin is set while holding SHARED lock on proc array ?
We may need to do the same in analyze_rel.
Thanks,
Pavan
Hmm ... only if it's already set inVacuum true ... there's a window
where it has not.
I wonder whether we could change CIC so that the "reference
snapshot" lists only transactions that are running and have already
determined their serializable snapshot (ie, have set proc->xmin).
Xacts that haven't yet done that can be ignored because they couldn't
possibly see the dead tuples we're worried about, no?
Yes, it may work. Do we need to take some extra care because
proc-xmin is set while holding SHARED lock on proc array ?
Then we could rearrange the order of operations in vacuum_rel so
that we lock the target rel before we acquire a snapshot. Then
a vacuum waiting for the CIC cannot cause a deadlock.
We may need to do the same in analyze_rel.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> Yes, it may work. Do we need to take some extra care because
> proc-xmin is set while holding SHARED lock on proc array ?
Good point. I'm envisioning a procarray.c function along the
lines of bool TransactionHasSnapshot(xid)
which returns true if the xid is currently listed in PGPROC
and has a nonzero xmin. CIC's cleanup wait loop would check
this and ignore the xid if it returns false. Your point means
that this function would have to take exclusive not shared lock
while scanning the procarray, which is kind of annoying, but
it seems not fatal since CIC isn't done all that frequently.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:>> Good point. I'm envisioning a procarray.c functionalong the> lines of> bool TransactionHasSnapshot(xid)> which returns true if the xid is currently listed in PGPROC>and has a nonzero xmin. CIC's cleanup wait loop would check> this and ignore the xid if it returns false. Your pointmeans> that this function would have to take exclusive not shared lock> while scanning the procarray, which is kindof annoying, but> it seems not fatal since CIC isn't done all that frequently.> Tom, If you haven't finished this yet, would you like me to work on this ? If I do it, I would mostly follow the path you suggested above, unless I run into something else. Thanks, Pavan -- EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> If you haven't finished this yet, would you like me to work
> on this ? If I do it, I would mostly follow the path you
> suggested above, unless I run into something else.
I'm not intending to work on it.
regards, tom lane
On 4/1/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Good point. I'm envisioning a procarray.c function along the
lines of
bool TransactionHasSnapshot(xid)
which returns true if the xid is currently listed in PGPROC
and has a nonzero xmin. CIC's cleanup wait loop would check
this and ignore the xid if it returns false. Your point means
that this function would have to take exclusive not shared lock
while scanning the procarray, which is kind of annoying, but
it seems not fatal since CIC isn't done all that frequently.
When I looked at the code, it occurred to me that possibly we are
OK with just taking shared lock on the procarray. That means that
some other transaction can concurrently set its serializable snapshot
while we are scanning the procarray. But that should not harm us:
if we see the snapshot set, we wait for the transaction. A transaction
which is setting its serializable snapshot NOW, can not see the
tuples that we did not index, isn't it ?
A patch based on the discussion is attached.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> When I looked at the code, it occurred to me that possibly we are
> OK with just taking shared lock on the procarray. That means that
> some other transaction can concurrently set its serializable snapshot
> while we are scanning the procarray. But that should not harm us:
> if we see the snapshot set, we wait for the transaction. A transaction
> which is setting its serializable snapshot NOW, can not see the
> tuples that we did not index, isn't it ?
[ itch... ] The problem is with time-extended execution of
GetSnapshotData; what happens if the other guy lost the CPU for a good
long time while in the middle of GetSnapshotData? He might set his
xmin based on info you saw as long gone.
You might be correct that it's safe, but the argument would have to
hinge on the OldestXmin process being unable to commit because of
someone holding shared ProcArrayLock; a point you are definitely not
making above. (Study the comments in GetSnapshotData for awhile,
also those in xact.c's commit-related code.)
I'm about to head to bed and am certainly in no condition to carry the
proof through. Have at it ...
regards, tom lane
On 4/11/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
[ itch... ] The problem is with time-extended execution of
GetSnapshotData; what happens if the other guy lost the CPU for a good
long time while in the middle of GetSnapshotData? He might set his
xmin based on info you saw as long gone.
You might be correct that it's safe, but the argument would have to
hinge on the OldestXmin process being unable to commit because of
someone holding shared ProcArrayLock; a point you are definitely not
making above. (Study the comments in GetSnapshotData for awhile,
also those in xact.c's commit-related code.)
My argument was based on what you said above, but I obviously did not
state it well :)
Anyways, I think its better to be safe and we agree that its not such a
bad thing to take exclusive lock on procarray because CIC is not something
that happens very often. Attached is a revised patch which takes exclusive
lock on the procarray, rest remaining the same.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On 4/11/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> >
> > [ itch... ] The problem is with time-extended execution of
> > GetSnapshotData; what happens if the other guy lost the CPU for a good
> > long time while in the middle of GetSnapshotData? He might set his
> > xmin based on info you saw as long gone.
> >
> > You might be correct that it's safe, but the argument would have to
> > hinge on the OldestXmin process being unable to commit because of
> > someone holding shared ProcArrayLock; a point you are definitely not
> > making above. (Study the comments in GetSnapshotData for awhile,
> > also those in xact.c's commit-related code.)
> >
> >
> My argument was based on what you said above, but I obviously did not
> state it well :)
>
> Anyways, I think its better to be safe and we agree that its not such a
> bad thing to take exclusive lock on procarray because CIC is not something
> that happens very often. Attached is a revised patch which takes exclusive
> lock on the procarray, rest remaining the same.
>
> Thanks,
> Pavan
>
> --
>
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> [ patch to reduce probability of deadlock of CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
> with other things ]
This patch no longer applies because of the VirtualXid changes.
Looking at it again, I'm fairly dissatisfied with it anyway;
I really don't like moving the GetTransactionSnapshot calls around
like that, because it opens a risk that GetTransactionSnapshot won't
get called at all.
Since the autovacuum case is already dealt with separately, I'm
thinking there is no problem here that we actually need to solve.
C.I.C. can never be guaranteed free of deadlock risk, so I don't
see a lot of value in making it free of deadlock risk against
just CLUSTER and VACUUM FULL.
regards, tom lane