Re: Hot standby and GiST page splits (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build)
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hot standby and GiST page splits (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMJKRte51t3zdjnOpBTFVDjBfBKZ8zQy87EDH3s7nkLUvw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hot standby and GiST page splits (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build) (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 01.08.2011 17:26, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>> I believe we code acquire the locks in right order already, and the patch >>> I >>> posted fixes the premature release of locks at page split. >> >> Your patch is good, but it does rely on the idea that we're logging >> the blocks in the same order they were originally locked. That's a >> good assumption, but I would like to see that documented for general >> sanity, or just mine at least. >> >> I can't really see anything in the master-side code that attempts to >> lock things in a specific sequence, which bothers me also. > > All but the first page are unused pages, grabbed with either P_NEW or from > the FSM. gistNewBuffer() uses ConditionalLockBuffer() to guard for the case > that someone else chooses the same victim buffer, and picks another page. Seems good. Thanks for checking some more for me. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: