On 13/04/17 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 4/10/17 13:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> * Worker started and attached to our shmem. This check is safe
>>> * because only launcher ever starts the workers, so nobody can
>>> * the worker slot.
>>> The tablesync patch enabled even worker to start another worker.
>>> So the above assumption is not valid for now.
>>> This issue seems to cause the corner case where the launcher picks up
>>> the same worker slot that previously-started worker has already picked
>>> up to start another worker.
>> I think what the comment should rather say is that workers are always
>> started through logicalrep_worker_launch() and worker slots are always
>> handed out while holding LogicalRepWorkerLock exclusively, so nobody can
>> steal the worker slot.
>> Does that make sense?
> No unless I'm missing something.
> logicalrep_worker_launch() picks up unused worker slot (slot's proc == NULL)
> while holding LogicalRepWorkerLock. But it releases the lock before the slot
> is marked as used (i.e., slot is set to non-NULL). Then newly-launched worker
> calls logicalrep_worker_attach() and marks the slot as used.
> So if another logicalrep_worker_launch() starts after LogicalRepWorkerLock
> is released before the slot is marked as used, it can pick up the same slot
> because that slot looks unused.
Yeah I think it's less of a problem of that comment than the fact that
logicalrep_worker_launch isn't concurrency safe. We need in_use marker
for the workers and update it as needed instead of relying on pgproc.
I'll write up something over the weekend.
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: