On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 4:05 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:49 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2018-11-14 16:36:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > But how do you make reading that counter atomic with the open() itself? > > > > I don't see why it has to be. As long as the "fd generation" assignment > > happens before fsync (and writes secondarily), there ought not to be any > > further need for synchronizity? > > If the goal is to have the FD that is opened first end up in the > checkpointer's table, grabbing a counter backwards does not achieve > it, because there's a race. > > S1: open FD > S2: open FD > S2: local_counter = shared_counter++ > S1: local_counter = shared_counter++ > > Now S1 was opened first but has a higher shared counter value than S2 > which was opened later. Does that matter? Beats me! I just work > here...
It's not important for the sequence numbers to match the opening order exactly (that'd work too but be expensive to orchestrate). It's important for the sequence numbers to be assigned before each backend does its first pwrite(). That gives us the following interleavings to worry about: S1: local_counter = shared_counter++ S2: local_counter = shared_counter++ S1: pwrite() S2: pwrite() S1: local_counter = shared_counter++ S2: local_counter = shared_counter++ S2: pwrite() S1: pwrite() S1: local_counter = shared_counter++ S1: pwrite() S2: local_counter = shared_counter++ S2: pwrite() ... plus the same interleavings with S1 and S2 labels swapped. In all 6 orderings, the fd that has the lowest sequence number can see errors relating to write-back of kernel buffers dirtied by both pwrite() calls. Or to put it another way, you can't be given a lower sequence number than another process that has already written, because that other process must have been given a sequence number before it wrote. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
