1berry/postgres
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Acquire ProcArrayLock exclusively in ProcArrayClearTransaction.

Browse Source 
This corrects an oversight by me in 20729324078, which made
ProcArrayClearTransaction() increment xactCompletionCount. That requires an
exclusive lock, obviously.

There's other approaches that avoid the exclusive acquisition, but given that a
2PC commit is fairly heavyweight, it doesn't seem worth doing so. I've not been
able to measure a performance difference, unsurprisingly.  I did add a
comment documenting that we could do so, should it ever become a bottleneck.

Reported-By: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Author: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1355915.1597794204@sss.pgh.pa.us
This commit is contained in:
Andres Freund 2020-08-19 18:19:52 -07:00
parent 2072932407
commit 1fe1f42e3e
1 changed files with 13 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

19
src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c
View File

@ -840,13 +840,20 @@ ProcArrayClearTransaction(PGPROC *proc)
size_t pgxactoff; size_t pgxactoff;
/* /*
* We can skip locking ProcArrayLock exclusively here, because this action * Currently we need to lock ProcArrayLock exclusively here, as we
* does not actually change anyone's view of the set of running XIDs: our * increment xactCompletionCount below. We also need it at least in shared
* entry is duplicate with the gxact that has already been inserted into * mode for pgproc->pgxactoff to stay the same below.
* the ProcArray. But need it in shared mode for pgproc->pgxactoff to stay *
* the same. * We could however, as this action does not actually change anyone's view
* of the set of running XIDs (our entry is duplicate with the gxact that
* has already been inserted into the ProcArray), lower the lock level to
* shared if we were to make xactCompletionCount an atomic variable. But
* that doesn't seem worth it currently, as a 2PC commit is heavyweight
* enough for this not to be the bottleneck. If it ever becomes a
* bottleneck it may also be worth considering to combine this with the
* subsequent ProcArrayRemove()
*/ */
LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_SHARED); LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
pgxactoff = proc->pgxactoff; pgxactoff = proc->pgxactoff;