I agree. It is an ugly hack.

But to me, the reduced window for failure is important. And that way an
failure will happen right away to be submitted to my operators as soon as

The queue jumping logic can not use the distributed transaction id?

On my logic, if a connection requests a shared lock that is already granted
to another connection in the same distributed transaction it should be
granted right away... make sense?

Em 08/09/2016 4:15 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:

> Lucas <luca...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I made a small modification in pg_dump to prevent parallel backup
> failures
> > due to exclusive lock requests made by other tasks.
> > The modification I made take shared locks for each parallel backup worker
> > at the very beginning of the job. That way, any other job that attempts
> to
> > acquire exclusive locks will wait for the backup to finish.
> I do not think this would eliminate the problem; all it's doing is making
> the window for trouble a bit narrower.  Also, it implies taking out many
> locks that would never be used, since no worker process will be touching
> all of the tables.
> I think a real solution involves teaching the backend to allow a worker
> process to acquire a lock as long as its master already has the same lock.
> There's already queue-jumping logic of that sort in the lock manager, but
> it doesn't fire because we don't see that there's a potential deadlock.
> What needs to be worked out, mostly, is how we can do that without
> creating security hazards (since the backend would have to accept a
> command enabling this behavior from the client).  Maybe it's good enough
> to insist that leader and follower be same user ID, or maybe not.
> There's some related problems in parallel query, which AFAIK we just have
> an ugly kluge solution for ATM.  It'd be better if there were a clear
> model of when to allow a parallel worker to get a lock out-of-turn.
>                         regards, tom lane

Reply via email to