From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: heap_update temporary release of buffer lock |
Date: | 2011-09-20 19:47:15 |
Message-ID: | 12943.1316548035@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar sep 20 16:04:03 -0300 2011:
>>> On 20.09.2011 20:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> I notice that heap_update releases the buffer lock, after checking the
>>>> HeapTupleSatifiesUpdate result, and before marking the tuple as updated,
>>>> to pin the visibility map page -- heapam.c lines 2638ff in master branch.
>> The easiest fix seems to be (as you suggest) to add "goto l2" after
>> reacquiring the lock. Can we get away with (and is there any benefit
>> to) doing that only if xmax has changed?
> Hmm ... I think that works, and it would suit my purposes too. Note
> this means you have to recheck infomask too (otherwise consider that
> IS_MULTI could be set the first time, and not set the second time, and
> that makes the Xmax have a different meaning.) OTOH if you just do it
> always, it is simpler.
Yeah, I think a "goto l2" is correct and sufficient. As the comment
already notes, this need not be a high-performance path, so why spend
extra code (with extra risk of bugs)?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-09-20 19:57:53 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-09-20 19:26:37 | Re: heap_update temporary release of buffer lock |