On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:17:38PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > 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
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by 2017-06-11 07:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team ownership without further notice. [1] 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
