Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait
Date: 2020-11-18 19:09:28
Message-ID: 20201118190928.vnztes7c2sldu43a@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2020-11-17 12:55:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ... ah, but I realize now that this means that we can use shared lock
> here, not exclusive, which is already an enormous improvement. That's
> because ->pgxactoff can only be changed with exclusive lock held; so as
> long as we hold shared, the array item cannot move.

Uh, wait a second. The acquisition of this lock hasn't been affected by
the snapshot scalability changes, and therefore are unrelated to
->pgxactoff changing or not.

In 13 this is:
LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
MyPgXact->vacuumFlags |= PROC_IN_VACUUM;
if (params->is_wraparound)
MyPgXact->vacuumFlags |= PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);

Lowering this to a shared lock doesn't seem right, at least without a
detailed comment explaining why it's safe. Because GetSnapshotData() etc
look at all procs with just an LW_SHARED ProcArrayLock, changing
vacuumFlags without a lock means that two concurrent horizon
computations could come to a different result.

I'm not saying it's definitely wrong to relax things here, but I'm not
sure we've evaluated it sufficiently.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vlad Bokov 2020-11-18 19:43:17 CREATE AGGREGATE array_cat
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-11-18 19:05:12 Re: cutting down the TODO list thread