> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Extended Prefetching using Asynchronous IO - proposal
> and patch
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:56:57 -0400
>
> Claudio Freire <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Claudio Freire <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> "ampeeknexttuple"? That's a bit scary. It would certainly be unsafe
> >>> for non-MVCC snapshots (read about vacuum vs indexscan interlocks in
> >>> nbtree/README).
>
> >> It's not really the tuple, just the tid
>
> > And, furthermore, it's used only to do prefetching, so even if the tid
> > was invalid when the tuple needs to be accessed, it wouldn't matter,
> > because the indexam wouldn't use the result of ampeeknexttuple to do
> > anything at that time.
>
> Nonetheless, getting the next tid out of the index may involve stepping
> to the next index page, at which point you've lost your interlock
I think we are ok as peeknexttuple (yes bad name, sorry, can change it ...
never advances to another page :
* btpeeknexttuple() -- peek at the next tuple different from any blocknum
in pfch_list
* without reading a new index page
* and without causing any side-effects such as altering
values in control blocks
* if found, store blocknum in next element of pfch_list
> guaranteeing that the *previous* tid will still mean something by the time
> you arrive at its heap page. I presume that the ampeeknexttuple call is
> issued before trying to visit the heap (otherwise you're not actually
> getting much I/O overlap), so I think there's a real risk here.
>
> Having said that, it's probably OK as long as this mode is only invoked
> for user queries (with MVCC snapshots) and not for system indexscans.
>
> regards, tom lane
