Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot standby and GiST page splits (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-08-01 15:26:59
Subject: Re: pgbench internal contention
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2011-08-01 15:21:19
Subject: Re: lazy vxid locks, v3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group