Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-02-03 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-02-03 14:18:02 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: - RecoveryLockList contains entry for lock no longer recorded by lock manager: xid %u database %u relation %u, - lock-xid, lock-dbOid, lock-relOid); +RecoveryLockList contains entry for lock no longer recorded by lock manager:

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-02-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 2015-01-29 11:01:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: Andres Freund wrote: I think this isn't particularly pretty, but it seems to be

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-01-30 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-01-29 11:01:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: Andres Freund wrote: I think this isn't particularly pretty, but it seems to be working well enough, and changing it would be pretty invasive. So keeping in

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-01-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: Andres Freund wrote: I think this isn't particularly pretty, but it seems to be working well enough, and changing it would be pretty invasive. So keeping in line with all that code seems to be easier. OK, I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-01-27 Thread Andres Freund
On 2015-01-27 16:23:53 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Unfortunately that Assert()s when there's a lock conflict because e.g. another backend is currently connecting. That's because ProcSleep() does a

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-01-27 Thread Michael Paquier
Andres Freund wrote: I think this isn't particularly pretty, but it seems to be working well enough, and changing it would be pretty invasive. So keeping in line with all that code seems to be easier. OK, I'm convinced with this part to remove the call of LockSharedObjectForSession that uses

[HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-01-26 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, dbase_redo does: if (InHotStandby) { /* * Lock database while we resolve conflicts to ensure that * InitPostgres() cannot fully re-execute concurrently. This *

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

2015-01-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Unfortunately that Assert()s when there's a lock conflict because e.g. another backend is currently connecting. That's because ProcSleep() does a enable_timeout_after(DEADLOCK_TIMEOUT, DeadlockTimeout) - and there's