On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> On 01.08.2011 17:26, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I believe we code acquire the locks in right order already, and the patch
>>> posted fixes the premature release of locks at page split.
>> Your patch is good, but it does rely on the idea that we're logging
>> the blocks in the same order they were originally locked. That's a
>> good assumption, but I would like to see that documented for general
>> sanity, or just mine at least.
>> I can't really see anything in the master-side code that attempts to
>> lock things in a specific sequence, which bothers me also.
> All but the first page are unused pages, grabbed with either P_NEW or from
> the FSM. gistNewBuffer() uses ConditionalLockBuffer() to guard for the case
> that someone else chooses the same victim buffer, and picks another page.
Seems good. Thanks for checking some more for me.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-08-01 15:26:59|
|Subject: Re: pgbench internal contention |
|Previous:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2011-08-01 15:21:19|
|Subject: Re: lazy vxid locks, v3|