From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2016-07-01 14:22:42 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBgYuA2RM6+fYpYU1HT=Po9bOFytO43uUtoUe00UyASfg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> 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,
>>
>> Even if we use heap_lock_tuple, If server crashed after flushed heap
>> but not vm, after crash recovery the heap is still marked all-visible
>> on vm.
>
> So, in this case both vm and page will be marked as all_visible.
>
>> This case could be happen even on released branched, and could make
>> IndexOnlyScan returns wrong result?
>>
>
> Why do you think IndexOnlyScan will return wrong result? If the
> server crash in the way as you described, the transaction that has
> made modifications will anyway be considered aborted, so the result of
> IndexOnlyScan should not be wrong.
>
Ah, you're right, I misunderstood.
Attached updated patch incorporating your comments.
I've changed it so that heap_xlog_lock clears vm flags if page is
marked all frozen.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
emit_wal_already_marked_true_case_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-01 14:52:28 | Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-07-01 14:20:52 | Re: EXISTS clauses not being optimized in the face of 'one time pass' optimizable expressions |