On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> As I was looking at the old text regarding deadlock risk, I realized >>> what may be a serious problem. Suppose process A is performing a scan >>> of some hash index. While the scan is suspended, it attempts to take >>> a lock and is blocked by process B. Process B, meanwhile, is running >>> VACUUM on that hash index. Eventually, it will do >>> LockBufferForCleanup() on the hash bucket on which process A holds a >>> buffer pin, resulting in an undetected deadlock. In the current >>> coding, A would hold a heavyweight lock and B would attempt to acquire >>> a conflicting heavyweight lock, and the deadlock detector would kill >>> one of them. This patch probably breaks that. I notice that that's >>> the only place where we attempt to acquire a buffer cleanup lock >>> unconditionally; every place else, we acquire the lock conditionally, >>> so there's no deadlock risk. Once we resolve this problem, the >>> paragraph about deadlock risk in this section should be revised to >>> explain whatever solution we come up with. >>> >>> By the way, since VACUUM must run in its own transaction, B can't be >>> holding arbitrary locks, but that doesn't seem quite sufficient to get >>> us out of the woods. It will at least hold ShareUpdateExclusiveLock >>> on the relation being vacuumed, and process A could attempt to acquire >>> that same lock. >>> >> >> Right, I think there is a danger of deadlock in above situation. >> Needs some more thoughts. >> > > I think one way to avoid the risk of deadlock in above scenario is to > take the cleanup lock conditionally, if we get the cleanup lock then > we will delete the items as we are doing in patch now, else it will > just mark the tuples as dead and ensure that it won't try to remove > tuples that are moved-by-split. Now, I think the question is how will > these dead tuples be removed. We anyway need a separate mechanism to > clear dead tuples for hash indexes as during scans we are marking the > tuples as dead if corresponding tuple in heap is dead which are not > removed later. This is already taken care in btree code via > kill_prior_tuple optimization. So I think clearing of dead tuples can > be handled by a separate patch. >
I think we can also remove the dead tuples next time when vacuum visits the bucket and is able to acquire the cleanup lock. Right now, we are just checking if the corresponding heap tuple is dead, we can have an additional check as well to ensure if the current item is dead in index, then consider it in list of deletable items. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
