On 2016-06-21 13:03:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> I don't quite understand the intended semantics of this proposed flag.
> >
> > Whenever the flag is set, we have to acquire the heavyweight tuple lock
> > before continuing. That guarantees nobody else can modify the tuple,
> > while the lock is released, without requiring to modify more than one
> > hint bit. That should fix the torn page issue, no?
>
> Yeah, I guess that would work.
>
> >> If we don't already have the tuple lock at that point, we can't go
> >> acquire it before releasing the content lock, can we?
> >
> > Why not? Afaics the way that tuple locks are used, the nesting should
> > be fine.
>
> Well, the existing places where we acquire the tuple lock within
> heap_update() are all careful to release the page lock first, so I'm
> skeptical that doing it the other order is safe. Certainly, if we've
> got some code that grabs the page lock and then the tuple lock and
> other code that grabs the tuple lock and then the page lock, that's a
> deadlock waiting to happen.
Just noticed this piece of code while looking into this:
UnlockReleaseBuffer(buffer);
if (have_tuple_lock)
UnlockTupleTuplock(relation, &(tp.t_self),
LockTupleExclusive);
if (vmbuffer != InvalidBuffer)
ReleaseBuffer(vmbuffer);
return result;
seems weird to release the vmbuffer after the tuplelock...
> I'm also a bit dubious that LockAcquire is safe to call in general
> with interrupts held.
Looks like we could just acquire the tuple-lock *before* doing the
toast_insert_or_update/RelationGetBufferForTuple, but after releasing
the buffer lock. That'd allow us to do avoid doing the nested locking,
should make the recovery just a goto l2;, ...
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
