Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yeah - I do not really like that dual-locking thing either. But it makes
prepared transaction handling much easier - if we were to only lock the
RID, we'd have to store the rid<->xid mapping for prepared transactions


Hmmm .... that's a good point.  Not sure how to include prepared xacts
in the scheme.

After further thought I think we should avoid depending on PIDs as part
of a lock tag --- their behavior is too system-dependent, in particular
we have no right to assume that when a backend exits the same PID won't
be reassigned shortly after, possibly leading to confusion.

Instead, I suggest that we keep a session counter in shared memory and
have each backend assign itself a session ID at startup using that.
A 32-bit session ID in combination with a 32-bit locally assigned
transaction number should be sufficiently unique to identify a
transaction (prepared or otherwise) for the purposes of locking.
These "transient XIDs" only need to be unique as long as the transaction
exists plus shortly thereafter (to avoid race conditions when someone
waits for a transaction that actually terminated a moment before).
So wraparound of the counters isn't a problem, although we probably
want to reserve zero as an invalid value.

I think we only need a transient XID of this sort for top-level
transactions, not subtransactions.

Sounds good, if we decide to go with the transient XID idea. So below
for an alternative that I just came up with.

To make CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY work, we'd need two things:

* GetLockConflicts would need to report the transient XIDs of the
  conflicting xacts, not regular XIDs, since they might not have regular
  XIDs.  Then we'd wait on those locks instead of regular-XID locks.

Yes. This is exactly what my patch does today.

* The second phase where we wait out transactions that can still see
  old tuples doesn't work because such transactions won't necessarily
  be listed in the snapshot.  Instead, what we have to do is look
  through the ProcArray for transactions whose advertised xmin is
  less than the xmax of our reference snapshot.  When we find one,
  wait for it using its transient XID.

AFAICT, C.I.C. is currently the only place in the system where we
really need transient XIDs at all.  Everyplace else that we need to
wait for a transaction, it's because we found its regular XID in
a tuple we want to lock or modify.  So the whole thing is a bit
annoying.  Maybe we could get rid of the extra overhead with some
shenanigans inside the lock manager, like not bothering to create
a data structure representing the holding of a transient-XID lock
until such time as C.I.C. actually tries to wait for it.  But
again, that seems like a second-pass optimization.

I've given some thought to that. There are two distinct things we
need to be able to wait for

1) Until all current holders of a lock, grantmask conflicts with
a given locklevel have dropped their lock

2) Until all currently in-use snapshots have an xmin larger than
some given value (The xmax of the reference snapshot).

(1) Could be solved directly in the lock manager. We'd need some
mechanism to wake up a process whenever someone releases a
ceratin lock.

(2) Could be done by acquireing a ShareLock (with a new locktype
    LOCKTYPE_XMIN) on the xmin of a transaction's serializable
    snapshot when it's created.
    The second waiting phase of concurrent index builds would then be
      a) Find the oldest xmin in the ProcArray.
      b) If that xmin is equal or greater than the xmax of our
         reference snapshot, we're done.
      c) Wait until the ExclusiveLock (for LOCKTYPE_TRANSACTION)
         is released on that xmin. After that point, new transactions
         will compute an xmin greater than the oldest one we found
         in the ProcArray, because the limiting transactions has
         exited, and because ReadNewTransactionId returns a value
         greater than that xmin too (Otherwise, we'd have exited in (b)).
      d) Wait for all current holders of LOCKTYPE_XMIN to release
         their locks. (Using the machinery needed for (1)). No
         new holders can show up, because new snapshots will computer
         a larger xmin.
      e) Goto a).

I could code (2), but I'd need help with (1) - The details of the locking
subsystems are still somewhat a mystery to me.

greetings, Florian Pflug


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to