On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 9:43 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:57 AM Masahiko Sawada > <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > IsRelationExtensionLockHeld and IsPageLockHeld are used only when > > assertion is enabled. So how about making CheckAndSetLockHeld work > > only if USE_ASSERT_CHECKING to avoid overheads? > > That makes sense to me so updated the patch. +1
In v10-0001-Assert-that-we-don-t-acquire-a-heavyweight-lock-.patch, + * Indicate that the lock is released for a particular type of locks. s/lock is/locks are + /* Indicate that the lock is acquired for a certain type of locks. */ s/lock is/locks are In v10-0002-*.patch, + * Flag to indicate if the page lock is held by this backend. We don't + * acquire any other heavyweight lock while holding the page lock except for + * relation extension. However, these locks are never taken in reverse order + * which implies that page locks will also never participate in the deadlock + * cycle. s/while holding the page lock except for relation extension/while holding the page lock except for relation extension and page lock + * We don't acquire any other heavyweight lock while holding the page lock + * except for relation extension lock. Same as above Other than that, the patches look good to me. I've also done some testing after applying the Test-group-deadlock patch provided by Amit earlier in the thread. It works as expected. -- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
