On 2014-03-07 17:54:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> So there are some unexplained differences there, but based on these results,
> I'm still OK with committing the patch.

So, I am looking at this right now.

I think there are some minor things I'd like to see addressed:

1) I think there needs to be a good sized comment explaining why
   WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish() isn't racy due to the unlocked read at
   the beginning of LWLockWait(). I think it's safe because we're
   reading Insert->CurrBytePos inside a spinlock, and it will only ever
   increment. As SpinLockAcquire() has to be a read barrier we can
   assume that every skewed read in LWLockWait() will be for lock
   protecting a newer insertingAt?
2) I am not particularly happy about the LWLockWait() LWLockWakeup()
   function names. They sound too much like a part of the normal lwlock
   implementation to me. But admittedly I don't have a great idea for
   a better naming scheme. Maybe LWLockWaitForVar(),
   LWLockWakeupVarWaiter()?
3) I am the wrong one to complain, I know, but the comments above struct
   WALInsertLock are pretty hard to read from th sentence structure.
4) WALInsertLockAcquire() needs to comment on acquiring/waking all but
   the last slot. Generally the trick of exclusive xlog insertion lock
   acquiration only really using the last lock could use a bit more
   docs.
5) WALInsertLockRelease() comments on the reset of insertingAt being
   optional, but I am not convinced that that's true anymore. If an
   exclusive acquiration isn't seen as 0 or
   INT64CONST(0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) by another backend we're in trouble,
   right? Absolutely not sure without thinking on it for longer than I
   can concentrate right now.
6) Pretty minor, but from a style POV it seems nicer to separate
   exclusive/nonexclusive out of WALInsertLockAcquire(). The cases don't
   share any code now.

A patch contianing some trivial changes is attached...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
index 484b9c5..8a55c6b 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
@@ -1628,8 +1628,6 @@ WALInsertLockRelease(void)
 static void
 WALInsertLockWakeup(XLogRecPtr insertingAt)
 {
-	int			i;
-
 	if (holdingAllLocks)
 	{
 		/*
diff --git a/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c b/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c
index f88bf76..2695128 100644
--- a/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lwlock.c
@@ -873,6 +873,9 @@ LWLockWait(LWLock *l, uint64 *valptr, uint64 oldval, uint64 *newval)
 	int			extraWaits = 0;
 	bool		result = false;
 
+	/* can't be used with shared locks for now */
+	Assert(lock->shared == 0);
+
 	/*
 	 * Quick test first to see if it the slot is free right now.
 	 *
@@ -905,6 +908,8 @@ LWLockWait(LWLock *l, uint64 *valptr, uint64 oldval, uint64 *newval)
 		SpinLockAcquire(&lock->mutex);
 #endif
 
+		Assert(lock->shared == 0);
+
 		/* Is the lock now free, and if not, does the value match? */
 		if (lock->exclusive == 0)
 		{
@@ -1022,6 +1027,7 @@ LWLockWakeup(LWLock *l, uint64 *valptr, uint64 val)
 	SpinLockAcquire(&lock->mutex);
 
 	/* we should hold the lock */
+	LWLockHeldByMe(l);
 	Assert(lock->exclusive == 1);
 
 	/* Update the lock's value */
-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to