Hi, On 2024-12-13 16:38:05 -0800, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 05:41:15PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote: > > Afaics we didn't do anything about this issue? > > postgr.es/c/e656657 fixed this. I thought this was longstanding, but it > turned out to have started on 2024-04-02.
Ah, that makes sense. I was a bit surprised to find this thread without any replies... > > Hm. Leaving RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK aside, is it actually always safe to do > > RestoreBlockImage() into a buffer that currently is pinned? Not sure if > > there's actually all that much guarantee what transient state one can read > > when reading a page concurrently to a memcpy(). I suspect it's practically > > rare to see a problem, but one could imagine an memcpy implementation that > > uses non-temporal writes, which afaict would leave you open to seeing quite > > random states when reading concurrently, as the cache coherence protocol > > doesn't protect anymore. > > I wondered about that, too. I didn't dig too deep. > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/memcpy.html and > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/byte/memcpy were both silent about > the topic. Hm. Perhaps it'd be worth having a small stress test in the tests that'd make problems like this more apparent. Even if it's not a problem current libc's, who knows what happens down the line. > > On 2024-05-12 10:16:58 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > > > I suspect the fix is to add a ReadBufferMode specified as, "If the block > > > is > > > already in shared_buffers, do RBM_NORMAL and exclusive-lock the buffer. > > > Otherwise, do RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK." > > > > I think that should work. At least in the current code it looks near trivial > > to implement, although the branch differences are going to be annoying. > > > > As usual the hardest part would probably be the naming. Maybe > > RBM_ZERO_ON_MISS_LOCK? RBM_LOCK_ZERO_ON_MISS? RBM_DWIM? > > It turned out RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK long worked that way, and postgr.es/c/e656657 > just had to restore that longstanding behavior. The existing comment "Don't > read from disk, caller will initialize." does allude to this (but I didn't > originally catch the subtle point). > > If RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK hadn't existed so long, I'd rename it. Perhaps it > deserves a rename anyway? Of those, I'd pick RBM_ZERO_ON_MISS_LOCK. I also > considered RBM_RECENT_OR_ZERO, borrowing a term from ReadRecentBuffer(). At least we could make the documentation for the mode in the enum clearer... Greetings, Andres Freund
