On 2022/02/01 17:27, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
* Similar to relation extension, page locks are also held for a short
* duration, so imposing such a restriction won't hurt.
I don't believe a path involving vacuum_delay_point() calls is
short-duration'ed.
Yes.
One thing that really bothers me about commit e2c79e14 is that
LockPage() is called, not LockBuffer(). GIN had no LockPage() calls
before that commit, and is now the only code in the entire system that
calls LockPage()/ConditionalLockPage() (the hash am no longer uses
page heavyweight locks following recent work there).
I agree to the discussion. Can't we use other mechanism here to get
rid of the Lockpage()?
I have no good idea for that yet, but I agree it's better to get rid of page
level lock.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
