Re: Page Scan Mode in Hash Index

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Page Scan Mode in Hash Index
Date: 2017-04-04 10:29:05
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KddmY1+5vzwU3qrxDppzLR51oAH2=WoQHhXmL+UUfveA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> My guess (which could be wrong) is that so->hashso_bucket_buf =
>> InvalidBuffer should be moved back up higher in the function where it
>> was before, just after the first if statement, and that the new
>> condition so->hashso_bucket_buf == so->currPos.buf on the last
>> _hash_dropbuf() should be removed. If that's not right, then I think
>> I need somebody to explain why not.
>
> Okay, as i mentioned above, in case of page scan mode we only keep pin
> on a bucket buf. There won't be any case where we will be having pin
> on overflow buf at the end of scan.
>

What if mark the buffer as invalid after releasing the pin? We are
already doing it that way in btree code, refer
_bt_drop_lock_and_maybe_pin(). I think if we do that way, then we can
do what Robert is suggesting.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2017-04-04 10:29:09 Re: FDW and parallel execution
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2017-04-04 10:26:26 Re: Page Scan Mode in Hash Index