On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
> I'm now exploring code working with heap tuples. The following code
> in heap_update() catch my eyes.
> if (DoesMultiXactIdConflict((MultiXactId) xwait, infomask,
>> LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK);
>> /* acquire tuple lock, if necessary */
>> heap_acquire_tuplock(relation, &(oldtup.t_self), *lockmode,
>> LockWaitBlock, &have_tuple_lock);
>> /* wait for multixact */
>> MultiXactIdWait((MultiXactId) xwait, mxact_status, infomask,
>> relation, &oldtup.t_self, XLTW_Update,
>> checked_lockers = true;
>> locker_remains = remain != 0;
>> LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE);
>> * If xwait had just locked the tuple then some other xact
>> * could update this tuple before we get to this point. Check
>> * for xmax change, and start over if so.
>> if (xmax_infomask_changed(oldtup.t_data->t_infomask,
>> infomask) ||
>> goto l2;
> Is it safe to rely on same oldtup.t_data pointer after release
> and re-acquire of buffer content lock? Could the heap tuple be relocated
> between lock release and re-acquire? I know that we still hold a buffer
> pin and vacuum would wait for pin release. But other heap operations could
> still call heap_page_prune() which correspondingly can relocate tuple.
> Probably, I'm missing something...
Please, forget it. heap_page_prune_opt() do:
> /* OK, try to get exclusive buffer lock */
> if (!ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup(buffer))
Nobody repairs buffer fragmentation while there is a pin. Everything is
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company