Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at parallel query start
От | Noah Misch |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at parallel query start |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20241107192233.94.nmisch@google.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at parallel query start (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Leader backend hang on IPC/ParallelFinish when LWLock held at parallel query start
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 12:17:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:23:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I do not have much faith in this patch. It assumes that the > >> condition "interrupts can be processed" is the same at plan time and > >> execution time. For plans extracted from the plan cache, there seems > >> little reason to assume that must be true. The proposed test case > >> cannot trigger that (today anyway) because SQL-language functions > >> don't deal in cached plans, but I suspect it could be broken with a > >> test case using a plpgsql function instead. > > > Good point. I missed that. > > While working on the release notes, I noticed that nothing further > got done about this concern. What do you think of adding a test > somewhere early in executor startup, to the effect of > > if (!INTERRUPTS_CAN_BE_PROCESSED()) > ereport(ERROR, > (errmsg("cannot start a query with interrupts disabled"))); > > It's definitely a band-aid, but it seems better than leaving > things at the status quo. That would fire in queries that don't error or hang today, so I think that would be worse than the status quo. This thread's previous commit just forced a serial plan. The executor counterpart would look like having the executor do what it does when there are no free worker slots.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: