| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |
| Date: | 2016-06-21 19:38:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYxOBMnvsqt1wvOoBd3wQvaVMMSuhbx-03EH0Wuqr+yPw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I'm also a bit dubious that LockAcquire is safe to call in general
>> with interrupts held.
>
> Looks like we could just acquire the tuple-lock *before* doing the
> toast_insert_or_update/RelationGetBufferForTuple, but after releasing
> the buffer lock. That'd allow us to do avoid doing the nested locking,
> should make the recovery just a goto l2;, ...
Why isn't that racey? Somebody else can grab the tuple lock after we
release the buffer content lock and before we acquire the tuple lock.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-21 19:43:46 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Try again to fix the way the scanjoin_target is used with partia |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-21 19:38:24 | Re: pgsql: Try again to fix the way the scanjoin_target is used with partia |