Previously, a worker process would establish values for these based on
its own start time. In v10 and up, this can trivially be shown to cause
misbehavior of transaction_timestamp(), timestamp_in(), and related
functions which are (perhaps unwisely?) marked parallel-safe. It seems
likely that other behaviors might diverge from what happens in the parent
as well.
It's not as trivial to demonstrate problems in 9.6 or 9.5, but I'm sure
it's still possible, so back-patch to all branches containing parallel
worker infrastructure.
In HEAD only, mark now() and statement_timestamp() as parallel-safe
(other affected functions already were). While in theory we could
still squeeze that change into v11, it doesn't seem important enough
to force a last-minute catversion bump.
Konstantin Knizhnik, whacked around a bit by me
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/6406dbd2-5d37-4cb6-6eb2-9c44172c7e7c@postgrespro.ru
On EXEC_BACKEND builds, this can fail if ASLR is in use.
Backpatch to 9.5. On master, completely remove the bgw_main field
completely, since there is no situation in which it is safe for an
EXEC_BACKEND build. On 9.6 and 9.5, leave the field intact to avoid
breaking things for third-party code that doesn't care about working
under EXEC_BACKEND. Prior to 9.5, there are no in-core bgworker
entrypoints.
Petr Jelinek, reviewed by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/09d8ad33-4287-a09b-a77f-77f8761adb5e@2ndquadrant.com
HandleParallelMessages leaked memory into the caller's context. Since it's
called from ProcessInterrupts, there is basically zero certainty as to what
CurrentMemoryContext is, which means we could be leaking into long-lived
contexts. Over the processing of many worker messages that would grow to
be a problem. Things could be even worse than just a leak, if we happened
to service the interrupt while ErrorContext is current: elog.c thinks it
can reset that on its own whim, possibly yanking storage out from under
HandleParallelMessages.
Give HandleParallelMessages its own dedicated context instead, which we can
reset during each call to ensure there's no accumulation of wasted memory.
Discussion: <16610.1472222135@sss.pgh.pa.us>
As noted by Alvaro, there are CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls in the shm_mq.c
functions called by HandleParallelMessages(). I believe they're all
unreachable since we always pass nowait = true, but it doesn't seem like
a great idea to assume that no such call will ever be reachable from
HandleParallelMessages(). If that did happen, there would be a risk of a
recursive call to HandleParallelMessages(), which it does not appear to be
designed for --- for example, there's nothing that would prevent
out-of-order processing of received messages. And certainly such cases
cannot easily be tested. So let's prevent it by holding off interrupts for
the duration of the function. Back-patch to 9.5 which contains identical
code.
Discussion: <14869.1470083848@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This back-patches commit a5fe473ad (notably, marking ParallelMessagePending
as volatile, which is not particularly optional). I also back-patched some
previous cosmetic changes to remove unnecessary diffs between the two
branches. I'm unsure how much of this code is actually reachable in 9.5,
but to the extent that it is reachable, it needs to be maintained, and
minimizing cross-branch diffs will make that easier.
Up until now, the total amount of data that could be passed to a
background worker at startup was one datum, which can be a small as
4 bytes on some systems. That's enough to pass a dsm_handle or an
array index, but not much else. Add a bgw_extra flag to the
BackgroundWorker struct, allowing up to 128 bytes to be passed to
a new worker on any platform.
Use this to fix a problem I recently discovered with the parallel
context machinery added in 9.5: the master assigns each worker an
array index, and each worker subsequently assigns itself an array
index, and there's nothing to guarantee that the two sets of indexes
match, leading to chaos.
Normally, I would not back-patch the change to add bgw_extra, since it
is basically a feature addition. However, since 9.5 is still in beta
and there seems to be no other sensible way to repair the broken
parallel context machinery, back-patch to 9.5. Existing background
worker code can ignore the bgw_extra field without a problem, but
might need to be recompiled since the structure size has changed.
Report and patch by me. Review by Amit Kapila.
check_role() tries to verify that the user has permission to become the
requested role, but this is inappropriate in a parallel worker, which
needs to exactly recreate the master's authorization settings. So skip
the check in that case.
This fixes a bug in commit 924bcf4f16.
Starting a parallel worker transaction changes our notion of which XIDs
are in-progress or committed, and our notion of the current command
counter ID. Therefore, our view of these caches prior to starting
this transaction may no longer valid. Defend against that by clearing
them.
This fixes a bug in commit 924bcf4f16.
Commit 2bd9e412f9 introduced a mechanism
for relaying protocol messages from a background worker to another
backend via a shm_mq. However, there was no provision for shutting
down the communication channel. Therefore, a protocol message sent
late in the shutdown sequence, such as a DEBUG message resulting from
cranking up log_min_messages, could crash the server. To fix, install
an on_dsm_detach callback that disables sending messages to the shm_mq
when the associated DSM is detached.
If a transaction or subtransaction creates a ParallelContext but ends
without calling InitializeParallelDSM, the previous code would
seg fault. Fix that.
This does four basic things. First, it provides convenience routines
to coordinate the startup and shutdown of parallel workers. Second,
it synchronizes various pieces of state (e.g. GUCs, combo CID
mappings, transaction snapshot) from the parallel group leader to the
worker processes. Third, it prohibits various operations that would
result in unsafe changes to that state while parallelism is active.
Finally, it propagates events that would result in an ErrorResponse,
NoticeResponse, or NotifyResponse message being sent to the client
from the parallel workers back to the master, from which they can then
be sent on to the client.
Robert Haas, Amit Kapila, Noah Misch, Rushabh Lathia, Jeevan Chalke.
Suggestions and review from Andres Freund, Heikki Linnakangas, Noah
Misch, Simon Riggs, Euler Taveira, and Jim Nasby.
