On 21.08.2011 07:41, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram

<gokul...@gmail.com>  wrote:
by your argument, if WALInserLock is held for 't' seconds, you should
definitely be holding visibility map lock for more than time frame 't'.

Nope, that's not how it works.  Perhaps you should read the code.
See, e.g., heap_update().


OK. I took a look at the patch you have supplied in

Here's the patch as it was committed: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=503c7305a1e379f95649eef1a694d0c1dbdc674a

There is a code like this.

          all_visible_cleared = true;
+        visibilitymap_clear(relation,
+                            ItemPointerGetBlockNumber(&(heaptup->t_self)),

Here, you are not making an entry into the WAL. then there is an assumption
that the two bits will be in sync without any WAL entry. There is a chance
that the visibility map might be affected by partial page writes, where
clearing of a particular bit might not have been changed. And i am thinking
a lot of such issues. Can you just explain the background logic behind
ignoring the principle of WAL logging? What are the implemented principles,
that protect the Visibility map pages??

The all_visible_cleared flag is included in the WAL record of the insert (or update or delete). Partial page writes are not a problem, because we always fetch the VM page and clear the bit, regardless of the LSN on the VM page.

PS. Robert, the LOCKING section in the header comment of visibilitymap.c is out-of-date: it claims that the VM bit is cleared after releasing the lock on the heap page.

  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to