On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 5:41 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > It seems to me knowing which pages may be pinned is very AM-specific > > knowledge, and my intention was to let the AM to manage that. > > This is useful information, because it helps me to understand how > you're viewing this. > > I totally disagree with this characterization. This is an important > difference in perspective. IMV index AMs hardly care at all about > holding onto buffer pins, very much unlike heapam. > > I think that holding onto pins and whatnot has almost nothing to do > with the index AM as such -- it's about protecting against unsafe > concurrent TID recycling, which is a table AM/heap issue. You can make > a rather weak argument that the index AM needs it for _bt_killitems, > but that seems very secondary to me (if you go back long enough there > are no _bt_killitems, but the pin thing itself still existed).
Much of this discussion is going over my head, but I have a comment on this part. I suppose that when any code in the system takes a pin on a buffer page, the initial concern is almost always to keep the page from disappearing out from under it. There might be a few exceptions, but hopefully not many. So I suppose what is happening here is that index AM pins an index page so that it can read that page -- and then it defers releasing the pin because of some interlocking concern. So at any given moment, there's some set of pins (possibly empty) that the index AM is holding for its own purposes, and some other set of pins (also possibly empty) that the index AM no longer requires for its own purposes but which are still required for heap/index interlocking. The second set of pins could possibly be managed in some AM-agnostic way. The AM could communicate that after the heap is done with X set of TIDs, it can unpin Y set of pages. But the first set of pins are of direct and immediate concern to the AM. Or at least, so it seems to me. Am I confused? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
