Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-12-03T03:03:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 12/02/2010 09:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 12/02/2010 09:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Now, process 3 is blocked behind process 2 is blocked behind process 1 >>> which is waiting for 3 to complete. Can you say "undetectable deadlock"? >> Hmm. Yeah. Maybe we could get around it if we prefork the workers and >> they all acquire locks on everything to be dumped up front in nowait >> mode, right after the parent, and if they can't the whole dump fails. Or >> something along those lines. > [ thinks for a bit... ] Actually it might be good enough if a child > simply takes the lock it needs in nowait mode, and reports failure on > error. We know the parent already has that lock, so the only way that > the child's request can fail is if something conflicting with > AccessShareLock is queued up behind the parent's lock. So failure to > get the child lock immediately proves that the deadlock case applies. > > Yeah, that would be a whole lot simpler. It would avoid the deadlock, but it would have lots more chances for failure. But it would at least be a good place to start. cheers andrew