From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, chenhj <chjischj(at)163(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Connections hang indefinitely while taking a gin index's LWLock buffer_content lock |
Date: | 2018-12-13 19:48:24 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdtpVKQ8TQ78tnW84177jH_uh_+=Gva_HBw=0Kj+f=O3ng@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:46 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2018-12-13 22:40:59 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > It doesn't mater, because we release all locks on every buffer at one
> > time. The unlock order can have effect on what waiter will acquire
> > the lock next after ginRedoDeletePage(). However, I don't see why one
> > unlock order is better than another. Thus, I just used the rule of
> > thumb to not change code when it's not necessary for bug fix.
>
> I think it's right to not change unlock order at the same time as a
> bugfix here. More generally I think it can often be useful to default
> to release locks in the inverse order they've been acquired - if there's
> any likelihood that somebody will acquire them in the same order, that
> ensures that such a party would only need to wait for a lock once,
> instead of being woken up for one lock, and then immediately having to
> wait for the next one.
Good point, thank you!
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-13 19:50:53 | Re: Reorganize collation lookup time and place |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-12-13 19:46:11 | Re: Connections hang indefinitely while taking a gin index's LWLock buffer_content lock |