Re: Refactor recovery conflict signaling a little

On 10/03/2026 05:55, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 1:05 AM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:28 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/03/2026 17:02, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
>>>> Did you use Alexander’s reproducer script? I tried reproducing with a
>>>> 1 ms pg_usleep() added to all three functions that clear
>>>> MyProc->pendingRecoveryConflicts, but I still couldn’t reproduce the
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> I used the attached, to be precise. With that it fails every time for
>>> me. I'm not sure if the "if (am_walsender)" check is necessary, I added
>>> it just to make the test run faster.
>>>
>>> - Heikki
>>
>> I was able to reproduce the issue using a wider sleep window as you
>> suggested and can confirm that the flag is not cleared after applying
>> the patch. Below are two logs—one from a successful run and one from a
>> failed run. I'll look further into the patch later on.
>>
>> failed run:
>> startup[1418915] LOG:  DBG SignalRecoveryConflict target_pid=1419118
>> reason=4 old_mask=0x0 new_mask=0x10
>> walsender[1419118] LOG:  DBG ProcArrayEndTransaction(no-xid) CLEARING
>> pendingRecoveryConflicts=0x10
>>
>> successful run:
>> startup[1433218] LOG:  DBG SignalRecoveryConflict target_pid=1433406
>> reason=4 old_mask=0x0 new_mask=0x10
>> walsender[1433406] LOG:  DBG ProcessInterrupts handler fired 1
>> time(s), pending=0x10 -- processing
>> walsender[1433406] ERROR:  canceling statement due to conflict with recovery
> 
> I ran the script several times after applying the patch, and all tests
> passed without deadlocking. LGTM.

Ok, thanks for confirming! Pushed.

> One nit: should we separate the comment fix and the
> InitAuxiliaryProcess hardening into separate patches?

I think it's appropriate to include them here; they're also follow-up 
fixes for the same commit 17f51ea818.

- Heikki