Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <> wrote:

> I noticed that this patch is conflicting with 665d1fa (Logical
> replication) so I rebased this. Only executor/Makefile
> conflicted.

I was lucky enough to see an infinite loop when using this patch, which I
fixed by this change:

diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execAsync.c b/src/backend/executor/execAsync.c
new file mode 100644
index 588ba18..9b87fbd
*** a/src/backend/executor/execAsync.c
--- b/src/backend/executor/execAsync.c
*************** ExecAsyncEventWait(EState *estate, long
*** 364,369 ****
--- 364,370 ----
                if ((w->events & WL_LATCH_SET) != 0)
+                       ResetLatch(MyLatch);
                        process_latch_set = true;

Actually _almost_ fixed because at some point one of the following

Assert(areq->state == ASYNC_WAITING);

statements fired. I think it was the immediately following one, but I can
imagine the same to happen in the branch

if (process_latch_set)

I think the wants_process_latch field of PendingAsyncRequest is not useful
alone because the process latch can be set for reasons completely unrelated to
the asynchronous processing. If the asynchronous node should use latch to
signal it's readiness, I think an additional flag is needed in the request
which tells ExecAsyncEventWait that the latch was set by the asynchronous

BTW, do we really need the ASYNC_CALLBACK_PENDING state? I can imagine the
async node either to change ASYNC_WAITING directly to ASYNC_COMPLETE, or leave
it ASYNC_WAITING if the data is not ready.

In addition, the following comments are based only on code review, I didn't
verify my understanding experimentally:

* Isn't it possible for AppendState.as_asyncresult to contain multiple
  responses from the same async node? Since the array stores TupleTableSlot
  instead of the actual tuple (so multiple items of as_asyncresult point to
  the same slot), I suspect the slot contents might not be defined when the
  Append node eventually tries to return it to the upper plan.

* For the WaitEvent subsystem to work, I think postgres_fdw should keep a
  separate libpq connection per node, not per user mapping. Currently the
  connections are cached by user mapping, but it's legal to locate multiple
  child postgres_fdw nodes of Append plan on the same remote server. I expect
  that these "co-located" nodes would currently use the same user mapping and
  therefore the same connection.

Antonin Houska
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to