On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Such a change can be made, but as I pointed out in the part you didn't
> quote, there are reasons to wonder whether that will be a constructive
> change in real life even if it's better for the regression tests.
> Optimizing PostgreSQL for the use case of running regression tests in
> the buildfarm at the expense of other use cases wouldn't be very
> smart. Maybe such a change is better in real-world applications too,
> but that deserves at least a little bit of thought and substantive
Rewind. Wait a minute. Looking at this code again, it looks like
we're supposed to ALREADY BE DOING THIS.
DestroyParallelContext() calls WaitForParallelWorkersToExit() which
calls WaitForBackgroundWorkerShutdown() for each worker. That
function returns only when the postmaster dies (which causes an error
with that specific complaint) or when GetBackgroundWorkerPid() sets
the status to BGWH_STOPPED. GetBackgroundWorkerPid() only returns
BGWH_STOPPED when either (a) handle->generation != slot->generation
(meaning that the slot got reused, and therefore must have been freed)
or when (b) slot->pid == 0. The pid only gets set to 0 in
BackgroundWorkerStateChange() when slot->terminate is set, or in
ReportBackgroundWorkerPID() when it's called from
CleanupBackgroundWorker. So this function should not be returning
until after all workers have actually exited.
However, it looks like there's a race condition here, because the slot
doesn't get freed up at the same time that the PID gets set to 0.
That actually happens later, when the postmaster calls
maybe_start_bgworker() or DetermineSleepTime() and one of those
functions calls ForgetBackgroundWorker(). We could tighten this up by
changing CleanupBackgroundWorker() to also call
ForgetBackgroundWorker() immediately after calling
ReportBackgroundWorker() if rw->rw_terminate ||
rw->rw_worker.bgw_restart_time == BGW_NEVER_RESTART. If we do that
BEFORE sending the notification to the starting process, that closes
this hole. Almost.
There's still a possibility that the waiting process might receive
SIGUSR1 for some unrelated reason and check the state of shared memory
just after slot->pid == 0 and before slot->in_use is cleared and (also
relevantly) just before BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_terminate_count
is incremented. Fixing that seems a bit tougher, since we're
certainly not going to have the postmaster start taking locks on
shared data structures, but just forgetting the worker sooner would
probably improve things a lot. I think.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: