On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the above changes can solve this issue but It seems to me that
> holding AccessExclusiveLock on pg_subscription by DROP SUBSCRIPTION
> until commit could lead another deadlock problem in the future. So I'd
> to contrive ways to reduce lock level somehow if possible. For
> example, if we change the apply launcher so that it gets the
> subscription list only when pg_subscription gets invalid, apply
> launcher cannot try to launch the apply worker being stopped. We
> invalidate pg_subscription at commit of DROP SUBSCRIPTION and the
> apply launcher can get new subscription list which doesn't include the
> entry we removed. That way we can reduce lock level to
> ShareUpdateExclusiveLock and solve this issue.
> Also in your patch, we need to change DROP SUBSCRIPTION as well to
> resolve another case I encountered, where DROP SUBSCRIPTION waits for
> apply worker while holding a tuple lock on pg_subscription_rel and the
> apply worker waits for same tuple on pg_subscription_rel in
> SetSubscriptionRelState().

I don't really understand the issue being discussed here in any
detail, but as a general point I'd say that it might be more
productive to make the locks finer-grained rather than struggling to
reduce the lock level.  For example, instead of locking all of
pg_subscription, use LockSharedObject() to lock the individual
subscription, still with AccessExclusiveLock.  That means that other
accesses to that subscription also need to take a lock so that you
actually get a conflict when there should be one, but that should be
doable.  I expect that trying to manage locking conflicts using only
catalog-wide locks is a doomed strategy.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to