Re: Hash Indexes

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, it will fix the problem in hashbucketcleanup, but there are two
>> other problems that need to be fixed for which I can send a separate
>> patch. By the way, as mentioned to you earlier that WAL patch already
>> takes care of removing _hash_wrtbuf and simplified the logic wherever
>> possible without introducing the logic of MarkBufferDirty multiple
>> times under one lock. However, if you want to proceed with the
>> current patch, then I can send you separate patches for the remaining
>> problems as addressed in bug fix patch.
>
> That sounds good.
>

Attached are the two patches on top of remove-hash-wrtbuf. Patch
fix_dirty_marking_v1.patch allows to mark the buffer dirty in one of
the corner cases in _hash_freeovflpage() and avoids to mark dirty
without need in _hash_squeezebucket(). I think this can be combined
with remove-hash-wrtbuf patch. fix_lock_chaining_v1.patch fixes the
chaining behavior (lock next overflow bucket page before releasing the
previous bucket page) was broken in _hash_freeovflpage(). These
patches can be applied in series, first remove-hash-wrtbuf, then
fix_dirst_marking_v1.patch and then fix_lock_chaining_v1.patch.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com