On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 01.08.2011 17:26, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>> I believe we code acquire the locks in right order already, and the patch >>> I >>> posted fixes the premature release of locks at page split. >> >> Your patch is good, but it does rely on the idea that we're logging >> the blocks in the same order they were originally locked. That's a >> good assumption, but I would like to see that documented for general >> sanity, or just mine at least. >> >> I can't really see anything in the master-side code that attempts to >> lock things in a specific sequence, which bothers me also. > > All but the first page are unused pages, grabbed with either P_NEW or from > the FSM. gistNewBuffer() uses ConditionalLockBuffer() to guard for the case > that someone else chooses the same victim buffer, and picks another page.
Seems good. Thanks for checking some more for me. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
