On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:34 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:04 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have fixed all pending review comments and also added a test case
> which is working fine.
> >
>
> Few observations and questions on testcase:
> 1.
> +step "s1_lock_s2" { SELECT pg_advisory_lock(2); }
> +step "s1_lock_s3" { SELECT pg_advisory_lock(2); }
> +step "s1_session" { SET spec.session = 1; }
> +step "s1_begin" { BEGIN; }
> +step "s1_insert_tbl1" { INSERT INTO tbl1 VALUES(1, repeat('a', 4000))
> ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING; }
> +step "s1_abort" { ROLLBACK; }
> +step "s1_unlock_s2" { SELECT pg_advisory_unlock(2); }
> +step "s1_unlock_s3" { SELECT pg_advisory_unlock(2); }
>
> Here, s1_lock_s3 and s1_unlock_s3 uses 2 as identifier. Don't you need
> to use 3 in that part of the test?
>
Yeah this should be 3.
>
> 2. In the test, there seems to be an assumption that we can unlock s2
> and s3 one after another, and then both will start waiting on s-1 but
> isn't it possible that before s2 start waiting on s1, s3 completes its
> insertion and then s2 will never proceed for speculative insertion?
>
I agree, such race conditions are possible. Currently, I am not able to
think what we can do here, but I will think more on this.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
