From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Adding an LWLockHeldByMe()-like function that reports if any buffer content lock is held |
Date: | 2018-04-18 23:53:29 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznJFhRT_b=+M6CcYo4JJacEeDa1meQN2u4+nkWZf5+X7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
During recent review of the INCLUDE covering index patch, I pushed to
formalize the slightly delicate assumptions that we make around how
index_truncate_tuple() is called. It's natural to call
index_truncate_tuple() during a page split, when a buffer lock is
held. This is what we actually do in most cases.
It occurred to me that it would be nice to be able to
Assert(!AnyBufferLockHeldByMe()) at a certain point within
index_form_tuple(), to make sure that our assumptions hold. If
index_truncate_tuple() (or any other function) ever called
index_form_tuple(), and ended up actually performing table access with
an exclusive buffer lock held, we'd at least be able to catch the bug
when assertions are enabled. A function that lets code assert that no
buffer locks are held, for the rare cases where external table access
is required seems like good general infrastructure.
Does this seem like a good idea? This could get pretty expensive if it
was overused, even by the standards of what we expect from
assertion-enabled builds, but we could make it optional if the
overhead got out of hand.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-04-19 00:04:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2018-04-18 23:31:50 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |