On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I committed remove-hash-wrtbuf and fix_dirty_marking_v1 but I've got >> some reservations about fix_lock_chaining_v1. ISTM that the natural >> fix here would be to change the API contract for _hash_freeovflpage so >> that it doesn't release the lock on the write buffer. Why does it >> even do that? I think that the only reason why _hash_freeovflpage >> should be getting wbuf as an argument is so that it can handle the >> case where wbuf happens to be the previous block correctly. > > Yeah, as of now that is the only case, but for WAL patch, I think we > need to ensure that the action of moving all the tuples to the page > being written and the overflow page being freed needs to be logged > together as an atomic operation.
Not really. We can have one operation that empties the overflow page and another that unlinks it and makes it free. > Now apart from that, it is > theoretically possible that write page will remain locked for multiple > overflow pages being freed (when the page being written has enough > space that it can accommodate tuples from multiple overflow pages). I > am not sure if it is worth worrying about such a case because > practically it might happen rarely. So, I have prepared a patch to > retain a lock on wbuf in _hash_freeovflpage() as suggested by you. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers