Re: Problem with txid_snapshot_in/out() functionality

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem with txid_snapshot_in/out() functionality
Date: 2014-04-12 14:03:42
Message-ID: 20140412140342.GV14419@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-04-12 09:47:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> > On 04/12/2014 12:07 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> the Slony team has been getting seldom reports of a problem with the
> >> txid_snapshot data type.
> >> The symptom is that a txid_snapshot on output lists the same txid
> >> multiple times in the xip list part of the external representation.
>
> > It's two-phase commit. When preparing a transaction, the state of the
> > transaction is first transfered to a dummy PGXACT entry, and then the
> > PGXACT entry of the backend is cleared. There is a transient state when
> > both PGXACT entries have the same xid.
>
> Hm, yeah, but why is that intermediate state visible to anyone else?
> Don't we have exclusive lock on the PGPROC array while we're doing this?

It's done outside the remit of ProcArray lock :(. And documented to lead
to duplicate xids in PGXACT.
EndPrepare():
/*
* Mark the prepared transaction as valid. As soon as xact.c marks
* MyPgXact as not running our XID (which it will do immediately after
* this function returns), others can commit/rollback the xact.
*
* NB: a side effect of this is to make a dummy ProcArray entry for the
* prepared XID. This must happen before we clear the XID from MyPgXact,
* else there is a window where the XID is not running according to
* TransactionIdIsInProgress, and onlookers would be entitled to assume
* the xact crashed. Instead we have a window where the same XID appears
* twice in ProcArray, which is OK.
*/
MarkAsPrepared(gxact);

It doesn't sound too hard to essentially move PrepareTransaction()'s
ProcArrayClearTransaction() into MarkAsPrepared() and rejigger the
locking to remove the intermediate state. But I think it'll lead to
bigger changes than we'd be comfortable backpatching.

> If we don't, aren't we letting other backends see non-self-consistent
> state in regards to who holds which locks, for example?

I think that actually works out ok, because the locks aren't owned by
xids/xacts, but procs. Otherwise we'd be in deep trouble in
CommitTransaction() as well where ProcArrayEndTransaction() clearing
that state.
After the whole xid transfer, there's PostPrepare_Locks() transferring
the locks.

Brr.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2014-04-12 14:09:35 Re: Problem with txid_snapshot_in/out() functionality
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-04-12 13:47:24 Re: Problem with txid_snapshot_in/out() functionality