From 7f557dc99190469218f769042a695b777a40bc93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Amit Kapila Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:15:49 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Improve locking startegy during VACUUM in Hash Index for regular tables. Patch by Ashutosh Sharma. --- src/backend/access/hash/README | 28 +++++++++++------------- src/backend/access/hash/hash.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ src/backend/access/hash/hashovfl.c | 13 +++++++---- 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/access/hash/README b/src/backend/access/hash/README index 4465605..8921c78 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/hash/README +++ b/src/backend/access/hash/README @@ -396,8 +396,8 @@ The fourth operation is garbage collection (bulk deletion): mark the target page dirty write WAL for deleting tuples from target page if this is the last bucket page, break out of loop - pin and x-lock next page release prior lock and pin (except keep pin on primary bucket page) + pin and x-lock next page if the page we have locked is not the primary bucket page: release lock and take exclusive lock on primary bucket page if there are no other pins on the primary bucket page: @@ -415,21 +415,17 @@ The fourth operation is garbage collection (bulk deletion): Note that this is designed to allow concurrent splits and scans. If a split occurs, tuples relocated into the new bucket will be visited twice by the scan, but that does no harm. As we release the lock on bucket page during -cleanup scan of a bucket, it will allow concurrent scan to start on a bucket -and ensures that scan will always be behind cleanup. It is must to keep scans -behind cleanup, else vacuum could decrease the TIDs that are required to -complete the scan. Now, as the scan that returns multiple tuples from the -same bucket page always expect next valid TID to be greater than or equal to -the current TID, it might miss the tuples. This holds true for backward scans -as well (backward scans first traverse each bucket starting from first bucket -to last overflow page in the chain). We must be careful about the statistics -reported by the VACUUM operation. What we can do is count the number of -tuples scanned, and believe this in preference to the stored tuple count if -the stored tuple count and number of buckets did *not* change at any time -during the scan. This provides a way of correcting the stored tuple count if -it gets out of sync for some reason. But if a split or insertion does occur -concurrently, the scan count is untrustworthy; instead, subtract the number of -tuples deleted from the stored tuple count and use that. +cleanup scan of a bucket, it will allow concurrent scan to start on a bucket. +It is quite possible that scans get ahead of vacuum and vacuum removes some +items from the current page being scanned, but that does no harm as we always +copy all the matching items from a page at once in the backend local array. +We must be careful about the statistics reported by the VACUUM operation. What +we can do is count the number of tuples scanned, and believe this in preference +to the stored tuple count if the stored tuple count and number of buckets did +*not* change at any time during the scan. This provides a way of correcting the +stored tuple count if it gets out of sync for some reason. But if a split or +insertion does occur concurrently, the scan count is untrustworthy; instead, +subtract the number of tuples deleted from the stored tuple count and use that. Free Space Management diff --git a/src/backend/access/hash/hash.c b/src/backend/access/hash/hash.c index 45a3a5a..012e00f 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/hash/hash.c +++ b/src/backend/access/hash/hash.c @@ -660,11 +660,9 @@ hashvacuumcleanup(IndexVacuumInfo *info, IndexBulkDeleteResult *stats) * that the next valid TID will be greater than or equal to the current * valid TID. There can't be any concurrent scans in progress when we first * enter this function because of the cleanup lock we hold on the primary - * bucket page, but as soon as we release that lock, there might be. We - * handle that by conspiring to prevent those scans from passing our cleanup - * scan. To do that, we lock the next page in the bucket chain before - * releasing the lock on the previous page. (This type of lock chaining is - * not ideal, so we might want to look for a better solution at some point.) + * bucket page, but as soon as we release that lock, there might be. But, + * we do not have to bother about it, as the hash index scan work in page + * at a time mode. * * We need to retain a pin on the primary bucket to ensure that no concurrent * split can start. @@ -833,18 +831,36 @@ hashbucketcleanup(Relation rel, Bucket cur_bucket, Buffer bucket_buf, if (!BlockNumberIsValid(blkno)) break; - next_buf = _hash_getbuf_with_strategy(rel, blkno, HASH_WRITE, - LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE, - bstrategy); - /* - * release the lock on previous page after acquiring the lock on next - * page + * As the hash index scan works in page-at-a-time mode, vacuum can + * release the lock on previous page before acquiring lock on the next + * page for regular tables, but, for unlogged tables, we avoid this as + * we do not want scan to cross vacuum when both are running on the + * same bucket page. This is to ensure that, we are safe during dead + * marking of index tuples in _hash_kill_items(). */ - if (retain_pin) - LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK); + if (RelationNeedsWAL(rel)) + { + if (retain_pin) + LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK); + else + _hash_relbuf(rel, buf); + + next_buf = _hash_getbuf_with_strategy(rel, blkno, HASH_WRITE, + LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE, + bstrategy); + } else - _hash_relbuf(rel, buf); + { + next_buf = _hash_getbuf_with_strategy(rel, blkno, HASH_WRITE, + LH_OVERFLOW_PAGE, + bstrategy); + + if (retain_pin) + LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK); + else + _hash_relbuf(rel, buf); + } buf = next_buf; } diff --git a/src/backend/access/hash/hashovfl.c b/src/backend/access/hash/hashovfl.c index c206e70..b41afbb 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/hash/hashovfl.c +++ b/src/backend/access/hash/hashovfl.c @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ _hash_freeovflpage(Relation rel, Buffer bucketbuf, Buffer ovflbuf, * Fix up the bucket chain. this is a doubly-linked list, so we must fix * up the bucket chain members behind and ahead of the overflow page being * deleted. Concurrency issues are avoided by using lock chaining as - * described atop hashbucketcleanup. + * described atop _hash_squeezebucket. */ if (BlockNumberIsValid(prevblkno)) { @@ -790,9 +790,14 @@ _hash_initbitmapbuffer(Buffer buf, uint16 bmsize, bool initpage) * Caller must acquire cleanup lock on the primary page of the target * bucket to exclude any scans that are in progress, which could easily * be confused into returning the same tuple more than once or some tuples - * not at all by the rearrangement we are performing here. To prevent - * any concurrent scan to cross the squeeze scan we use lock chaining - * similar to hasbucketcleanup. Refer comments atop hashbucketcleanup. + * not at all by the rearrangement we are performing here. This means there + * can't be any concurrent scans in progress when we first enter this + * function because of the cleanup lock we hold on the primary bucket page, + * but as soon as we release that lock, there might be. To prevent any + * concurrent scan to cross the squeeze scan we use lock chaining i.e. + * we lock the next page in the bucket chain before releasing the lock on + * the previous page. (This type of lock chaining is not ideal, so we might + * want to look for a better solution at some point.) * * We need to retain a pin on the primary bucket to ensure that no concurrent * split can start. -- 1.8.4.msysgit.0