From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
Date: | 2016-06-30 06:12:50 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+19nb50V1tGRj93pvTK=pf9F0Xcp-xam9GsMwO4HuugQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-06-30 08:59:16 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > On 2016-06-29 19:04:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> There is nothing in this record which recorded the information about
>> >> visibility clear flag.
>> >
>> > I think we can actually defer the clearing to the lock release?
>>
>> How about the case if after we release the lock on page, the heap page
>> gets flushed, but not vm and then server crashes?
>
> In the released branches there's no need to clear all visible at that
> point. Note how heap_lock_tuple doesn't clear it at all. So we should be
> fine there, and that's the part where reusing an existing record is
> important (for compatibility).
>
For back branches, I agree that heap_lock_tuple is sufficient, but in
that case we should not clear the vm or page bit at all as done in
proposed patch.
> But your question made me realize that we despearately *do* need to
> clear the frozen bit in heap_lock_tuple in 9.6...
>
Right.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sachin Kotwal | 2016-06-30 07:09:15 | Re: pgbench unable to scale beyond 100 concurrent connections |
Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-06-30 05:05:53 | Re: 10.0 |