Commit d5e3d1e
committed
Fix thinko in lock mode enum
Commit 0e5680f contained a thinko
mixing LOCKMODE with LockTupleMode. This caused misbehavior in the case
where a tuple is marked with a multixact with at most a FOR SHARE lock,
and another transaction tries to acquire a FOR NO KEY EXCLUSIVE lock;
this case should block but doesn't.
Include a new isolation tester spec file to explicitely try all the
tuple lock combinations; without the fix it shows the problem:
starting permutation: s1_begin s1_lcksvpt s1_tuplock2 s2_tuplock3 s1_commit
step s1_begin: BEGIN;
step s1_lcksvpt: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR KEY SHARE; SAVEPOINT foo;
a
1
step s1_tuplock2: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR SHARE;
a
1
step s2_tuplock3: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR NO KEY UPDATE;
a
1
step s1_commit: COMMIT;
With the fixed code, step s2_tuplock3 blocks until session 1 commits,
which is the correct behavior.
All other cases behave correctly.
Backpatch to 9.3, like the commit that introduced the problem.1 parent 2ea9595 commit d5e3d1e
File tree
4 files changed
+537
-2
lines changed- src
- backend/access/heap
- test/isolation
- expected
- specs
4 files changed
+537
-2
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
6102 | 6102 | | |
6103 | 6103 | | |
6104 | 6104 | | |
| 6105 | + | |
6105 | 6106 | | |
6106 | 6107 | | |
6107 | 6108 | | |
| |||
6113 | 6114 | | |
6114 | 6115 | | |
6115 | 6116 | | |
6116 | | - | |
| 6117 | + | |
6117 | 6118 | | |
6118 | 6119 | | |
| 6120 | + | |
6119 | 6121 | | |
6120 | | - | |
| 6122 | + | |
6121 | 6123 | | |
6122 | 6124 | | |
6123 | 6125 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments