On 2015-09-11 19:33:26 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> On Friday 11 September 2015 18:14:21 Andres Freund wrote:
> > This way we can leave the for (;;) loop
> > in BufferAlloc() thinking that the buffer is unused (and can't be further
> > pinned because of the held spinlock!)
>
> We lost lock after PinBuffer_Locked in BufferAlloc. Therefore, in essence,
> nothing has changed.
The relevant piece of code is:
/*
* Need to lock the buffer header too in order to change its
tag.
*/
LockBufHdr(buf);
/*
* Somebody could have pinned or re-dirtied the buffer while we
were
* doing the I/O and making the new hashtable entry. If so, we
can't
* recycle this buffer; we must undo everything we've done and
start
* over with a new victim buffer.
*/
oldFlags = buf->flags;
if (buf->refcount == 1 && !(oldFlags & BM_DIRTY))
break;
UnlockBufHdr(buf);
BufTableDelete(&newTag, newHash);
if ((oldFlags & BM_TAG_VALID) &&
oldPartitionLock != newPartitionLock)
LWLockRelease(oldPartitionLock);
LWLockRelease(newPartitionLock);
UnpinBuffer(buf, true);
}
/*
* Okay, it's finally safe to rename the buffer.
*
* Clearing BM_VALID here is necessary, clearing the dirtybits is just
* paranoia. We also reset the usage_count since any recency of use of
* the old content is no longer relevant. (The usage_count starts out
at
* 1 so that the buffer can survive one clock-sweep pass.)
*/
buf->tag = newTag;
buf->flags &= ~(BM_VALID | BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED |
BM_CHECKPOINT_NEEDED | BM_IO_ERROR | BM_PERMANENT);
if (relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT)
buf->flags |= BM_TAG_VALID | BM_PERMANENT;
else
buf->flags |= BM_TAG_VALID;
buf->usage_count = 1;
UnlockBufHdr(buf);
so unless I'm missing something, no, we haven't lost the lock.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
