Re: Shared buffer access rule violations?

Asim R P <apraveen@pivotal.io> writes:
> In order to make changes to a shared buffer, one must hold a pin on it
> and the content lock in exclusive mode.  This rule seems to be
> followed in most of the places but there are a few exceptions.

> One can find several PageInit() calls with no content lock held.  See,
> for example:

> fill_seq_with_data()

That would be for a relation that no one else can even see yet, no?

> vm_readbuf()
> fsm_readbuf()

In these cases I'd imagine that the I/O completion interlock is what
is preventing other backends from accessing the buffer.

> Moreover, fsm_vacuum_page() performs
> "PageGetContents(page))->fp_next_slot = 0;" without content lock.

That field is just a hint, IIRC, and the possibility of a torn read
is explicitly not worried about.

> There may be more but I want to know if these can be treated as
> violations before moving ahead.

These specific things don't sound like bugs, though possibly I'm
missing something.  Perhaps more comments would be in order.

            regards, tom lane