| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(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 14:34:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4E36B987.2060008@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-08-01 15:04:58 | Re: Access to current database from C-language function |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-08-01 14:26:57 | Re: Hot standby and GiST page splits (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build) |