From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Yvonne Chen <yvonne(at)extrahop(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: README.tuplock and SHARE lock |
Date: | 2024-11-19 08:45:43 |
Message-ID: | 202411190845.qfykjp5l4ijx@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Nov-18, Will Mortensen wrote:
> README.tuplock says:
>
> > There is one exception
> > here: since infomask space is limited, we do not provide a separate bit
> > for SELECT FOR SHARE, so we have to use the extended info in a MultiXact in
> > that case. (The other cases, SELECT FOR UPDATE and SELECT FOR KEY SHARE, are
> > presumably more commonly used due to being the standards-mandated locking
> > mechanism, or heavily used by the RI code, so we want to provide fast paths
> > for those.)
>
> But looking at the explanations of the infomask bits further down (as
> updated in commit cdbdc4382743fcfabb3437ea7c4d103adaa01324), as well
> as the actual code for locking a not-yet-locked tuple in
> compute_new_xmax_infomask(), this doesn't seem to be true. Was this an
> oversight?
Hmm, yeah, it seems you're correct about this being an oversight -- we
don't necessarily use a multixact if all we want to do is to store a FOR
SHARE lock. Instead, what we do is mark the tuple with two lock bits,
per this bit in src/include/access/htup_details.h:
#define HEAP_XMAX_SHR_LOCK (HEAP_XMAX_EXCL_LOCK | HEAP_XMAX_KEYSHR_LOCK)
This can be seen in a WAL_DEBUG build, when doing SELECT FOR SHARE of a
tuple does this:
2024-11-19 09:39:37.011 CET [65326] LOG: INSERT @ 0/1B92EB0: - Heap/LOCK: xmax: 744, off: 1, infobits: [LOCK_ONLY, EXCL_LOCK, KEYSHR_LOCK], flags: 0x00
Note that the infobits don't include anything about it being MULTI.
Contrast that with the case where the same tuple is locked by two
transactions simultaneously:
2024-11-19 09:40:45.582 CET [65326] LOG: INSERT @ 0/1B93008: - MultiXact/CREATE_ID: 1 offset 1 nmembers 2: 745 (sh) 746 (sh)
2024-11-19 09:40:45.582 CET [65326] LOG: INSERT @ 0/1B93040: - Heap/LOCK: xmax: 1, off: 1, infobits: [IS_MULTI, LOCK_ONLY, EXCL_LOCK, KEYSHR_LOCK], flags: 0x00
Here we first see the MultiXact being created (with two transactions,
both using SHARE mode), then the tuple being locked with IS_MULTI.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Subversion to GIT: the shortest path to happiness I've ever heard of
(Alexey Klyukin)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2024-11-19 08:52:28 | Re: Change COPY ... ON_ERROR ignore to ON_ERROR ignore_row |
Previous Message | Masahiro Ikeda | 2024-11-19 08:30:56 | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |