On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:11 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:59:45AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > My order of preference is: 2, 1, 3. > > I kept tuple locking responsibility in heapam.c. That's simpler and better > for modularity, but it does mean we release+acquire after any xmax wait. > Before, we avoided that if the next genam.c scan found the same TID. (If the > next scan finds the same TID, the xmax probably aborted.) I think DDL aborts > are rare enough to justify simplifying as this version does. I don't expect > anyone to notice the starvation outside of tests built to show it. (With > previous versions, one can show it with a purpose-built test that commits > instead of aborting, like the "001_pgbench_grant@9" test.) > > This move also loses the optimization of unpinning before XactLockTableWait(). > heap_update() doesn't optimize that way, so that's fine. > > The move ended up more like (1), though I did do > s/systable_inplace_update_scan/systable_inplace_update_begin/ like in (2). I > felt that worked better than (2) to achieve lock release before > CacheInvalidateHeapTuple(). Alternatives that could be fine: > >From a consistency point of view, I find it cleaner if we can have all the heap_inplace_lock and heap_inplace_unlock in the same set of functions. So here those would be the systable_inplace_* functions.
> - In the cancel case, call both systable_inplace_update_cancel and > systable_inplace_update_end. _finish or _cancel would own unlock, while > _end would own systable_endscan(). > What happens to CacheInvalidateHeapTuple() in this approach? I think it will still need to be brought to the genam.c layer if we are releasing the lock in systable_inplace_update_finish. > - Hoist the CacheInvalidateHeapTuple() up to the genam.c layer. While > tolerable now, this gets less attractive after the inplace160 patch from > https://postgr.es/m/flat/20240523000548.58.nmi...@google.com > I skimmed through the inplace160 patch. It wasn't clear to me why this becomes less attractive with the patch. I see there is a new CacheInvalidateHeapTupleInPlace but that looks like it would be called while holding the lock. And then there is an AcceptInvalidationMessages which can perhaps be moved to the genam.c layer too. Is the concern that one invalidation call will be in the heapam layer and the other will be in the genam layer? Also I have a small question from inplace120. I see that all the places we check resultRelInfo->ri_needLockTagTuple, we can just call IsInplaceUpdateRelation(resultRelInfo->ri_RelationDesc). Is there a big advantage of storing a separate bool field? Also there is another write to ri_RelationDesc in CatalogOpenIndexes in src/backlog/catalog/indexing.c. I think ri_needLockTagTuple needs to be set there also to keep it consistent with ri_RelationDesc. Please let me know if I am missing something about the usage of the new field. Thanks & Regards, Nitin Motiani Google
