Re: type cache cleanup improvements

From: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: type cache cleanup improvements
Date: 2024-08-31 19:33:23
Message-ID: 57fe476a-01c1-452e-ad0a-8eb49123bd28@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 29/8/2024 11:01, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:26 AM Alexander Korotkov
>> Secondly, I'm not terribly happy with current state of type cache.
>> The caller of lookup_type_cache() might get already invalidated data.
>> This probably OK, because caller probably hold locks on dependent
>> objects to guarantee that relevant properties of type actually
>> persists. At very least this should be documented, but it doesn't
>> seem so. Setting of tupdesc is sensitive to its order of execution.
>> That feels quite fragile to me, and not documented either. I think
>> this area needs improvements before we push additional functionality
>> there.
>
> I see fdd965d074 added a proper handling for concurrent invalidation
> for relation cache. If a concurrent invalidation occurs, we retry
> building a relation descriptor. Thus, we end up with returning of a
> valid relation descriptor to caller. I wonder if we can take the same
> approach to type cache. That would make the whole type cache more
> consistent and less fragile. Also, this patch will be simpler.
I think I understand the solution from the commit fdd965d074.
Just for the record, you mentioned invalidation inside the
lookup_type_cache above. Passing through the code, I found the only
place for such a case - the call of the GetDefaultOpClass, which
triggers the opening of the relation pg_opclass, which can cause an
AcceptInvalidationMessages call. Did you mean this case, or does a wider
field of cases exist here?

--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2024-08-31 20:37:31 Re: index prefetching
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-08-31 16:59:02 Re: Add tests for PL/pgSQL SRFs