From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot standby and GiST page splits (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build) |
Date: | 2011-08-01 15:25:01 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJKRte51t3zdjnOpBTFVDjBfBKZ8zQy87EDH3s7nkLUvw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> 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
>>> I
>>> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-01 15:26:59 | Re: pgbench internal contention |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-08-01 15:21:19 | Re: lazy vxid locks, v3 |