On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:24:30PM +0000, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:07:53AM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Michael Paquier > > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> wangchuant...@huawei.com writes: > > >>> startup process on standby encounter a deadlock of TwoPhaseStateLock > > >>> when > > >>> redo 2PC xlog. > > >> > > >> Please provide an example of how to get into this state. > > > > > > That would help. Are you seeing in the logs something like "removing > > > future two-phase state from memory for XXX" or "removing stale > > > two-phase state from shared memory for XXX"? > > > > > > Even with that, the light-weight lock sequence taken in those code > > > paths look definitely wrong to me, we should not take twice > > > TwoPhaseStateLock in the same code path. I think that we should remove > > > the lock acquisitions in RemoveGXact() and PrepareRedoRemove, and then > > > upgrade the locks of PrescanPreparedTransactions() and > > > StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions() to be exclusive. We still need to > > > keep a lock as CheckPointTwoPhase() may still be triggered by the > > > checkpoint. Tom, what do you think? > > > > Attached is what I was thinking about for reference. I just came back > > from a long flight and I am pretty tired, so my brain may have missed > > something. I'll take again a look at this issue on Monday, an open > > item has been added for now. > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Simon, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of > this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts > toward speedy resolution. Thanks. > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
