Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1227037854.5748.44.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 16:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > The alternative I was thinking about involved taking an exclusive buffer > lock on the page containing the tuple to be updated in-place. The point > being that you have to examine the old tuple contents and decide whether > to update after you have lock, not before. I think this would amount to > refactoring heap_inplace_update into two operations: fetch/lock and > update/unlock. (I guess there should be a third function to release > without updating, too --- that would really just be an unlock-buffer > operation, but it'd be better if callers didn't explicitly know that.) > The callers would probably still use the syscache to obtain the tuple > address, but they wouldn't rely on it to supply the tuple image. Here's what I'm working on: HeapTuple heap_inplace_xxx(Relation relation, HeapTuple tuple, Buffer *buffer) xxx = (fetch, update, release) usage: tuple = heap_inplace_fetch(rel, tuple, &buffer); .... if (dirty)heap_inplace_fe(rel, tuple, &buffer); elseheap_inplace_fetch(rel, tuple, &buffer); heap_inplace_fetch takes as input "tuple" which is a palloc'd tuple, extracts from it the tid of the tuple, reads the buffer, locks it, then releases the original tuple. It then returns a copy of the on-block tuple. So all other code the same as before when we were working on a copy produced from the syscache. Is that roughly what you intended? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: