On 2024-Feb-04, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
> This patch uses wording "banks" in comments before banks start to
> exist. But as far as I understand, it is expected to be committed
> before "banks" patch.
True -- changed that to use ControlLock.
> Besides this patch looks good to me.
Many thanks for reviewing.
On 2024-Feb-05, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > (We also have SimpleLruTruncate, but I think it's not as critical to
> > have a barrier there anyhow: accessing a slightly outdated page number
> > could only be a problem if a bug elsewhere causes us to try to truncate
> > in the current page. I think we only have this code there because we
> > did have such bugs in the past, but IIUC this shouldn't happen anymore.)
>
> +1, I agree with this theory in general. But the below comment in
> SimpleLruTrucate in your v3 patch doesn't seem correct, because here
> we are checking if the latest_page_number is smaller than the cutoff
> if so we log it as wraparound and skip the whole thing and that is
> fine even if we are reading with atomic variable and slightly outdated
> value should not be a problem but the comment claim that this safe
> because we have the same bank lock as SimpleLruZeroPage(), but that's
> not true here we will be acquiring different bank locks one by one
> based on which slotno we are checking. Am I missing something?
I think you're correct. I reworded this comment, so now it says this:
/*
* An important safety check: the current endpoint page must not be
* eligible for removal. This check is just a backstop against wraparound
* bugs elsewhere in SLRU handling, so we don't care if we read a slightly
* outdated value; therefore we don't add a memory barrier.
*/
Pushed with those changes. Thank you!
Now I'll go rebase the rest of the patch on top.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Having your biases confirmed independently is how scientific progress is
made, and hence made our great society what it is today" (Mary Gardiner)