Re: less expensive pg_buffercache on big shmem

On 09/29/2016 02:45 AM, Ivan Kartyshov wrote:
>  > Secondly, I see this bit added to the loop over buffers:
>  >
>  >     if (bufHdr->tag.forkNum == -1)
>  >     {
>  >         fctx->record[i].blocknum = InvalidBlockNumber;
>  >         continue;
>  >     }
>  >
>  > and I have no idea why this is needed (when it was not needed before).
>
> This helps to skip not used bufferpages. It is valuable on big and  not
> warmup shared memory.

That seems like an unrelated change. Checking for forkNum, instead of 
e.g. BM_VALID seems a bit surprising, too.

> On 09/02/2016 12:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think we certainly want to lock the buffer header, because otherwise
>> we might get a torn read of the buffer tag, which doesn't seem good.
>> But it's not obvious to me that there's any point in taking the lock
>> on the buffer mapping partition; I'm thinking that doesn't really do
>> anything unless we lock them all, and we all seem to agree that's
>> going too far.
>
> Replace consistent method with semiconsistent (that lock buffer headers
> without partition lock). Made some additional fixes thanks to reviewers.

This patch also does:

+++ b/contrib/pg_buffercache/pg_buffercache--1.2--1.3.sql
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+/* contrib/pg_buffercache/pg_buffercache--1.2--1.3.sql */
+
+-- complain if script is sourced in psql, rather than via ALTER EXTENSION
+\echo Use "ALTER EXTENSION pg_buffercache(text) UPDATE TO '1.3'" to 
load this file. \quit
+
+ALTER FUNCTION pg_buffercache_pages() PARALLEL SAFE;

Why? That seems unrelated to what's been discussed in this thread.


I have committed the straightforward part of this, removing the 
partition-locking. I think we're done here for this commitfest, but feel 
free to post new patches for that PARALLEL SAFE and the quick-check for 
unused buffers, if you think it's worthwhile.

- Heikki