On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:30 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2022-10-17 13:34:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I don't feel quite as confident that not attempting a cleanup lock on > > the new bucket's primary page is OK. I think it should be fine. The > > existing comment even says it should be fine. But, that comment could > > be wrong, and I'm not sure that I have my head around what all of the > > possible interactions around that cleanup lock are. So changing it > > makes me a little nervous. > > If it's not OK, then the acquire-cleanuplock-after-reinit would be an > active bug though, right?
Yes, probably so. Another approach here would be to have something like _hash_getnewbuf that does not use RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK or call _hash_pageinit, and then call _hash_pageinit here, perhaps just before nopaque = HashPageGetOpaque(npage), so that it's within the critical section. But that doesn't feel very consistent with the rest of the code. Maybe just nuking the IsBufferCleanupOK call is best, I don't know. I honestly doubt that it matters very much what we pick here. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
