I notice CopyXLogRecordToWAL contains this loop (in the case where
the record being copied is a switch):
while (CurrPos < EndPos)
{ /* initialize the next page (if not initialized already) */ WALInsertLockUpdateInsertingAt(CurrPos);
AdvanceXLInsertBuffer(CurrPos,false); CurrPos += XLOG_BLCKSZ;
}
in which it calls, one page at a time, AdvanceXLInsertBuffer, which contains
its own loop able to do a sequence of pages. A comment explains why:
/** We do this one page at a time, to make sure we don't deadlock* against ourselves if wal_buffers < XLOG_SEG_SIZE.*/
I want to make sure I understand what the deadlock potential is
in this case. AdvanceXLInsertBuffer will call WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish
before writing any dirty buffer, and we do hold insertion slot locks
(all of 'em, in the case of a log switch, because that makes
XlogInsertRecord call WALInsertLockAcquireExclusive instead of just
WALInsertLockAcquire for other record types).
Does not the fact we hold all the insertion slots exclude the possibility
that any dirty buffer (preceding the one we're touching) needs to be checked
for in-flight insertions?
I've been thinking along the lines of another parameter to
AdvanceXLInsertBuffer to indicate when the caller is exactly this loop
filling out the tail after a log switch (originally, to avoid filling
in page headers). It now seems to me that, if AdvanceXLInsertBuffer
has that information, it could also be safe for it to skip the
WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish in that case. Would that eliminate the
deadlock potential, and allow the loop in CopyXLogRecordToWAL to be
replaced with a single call to AdvanceXLInsertBuffer and a single
WALInsertLockUpdateInsertingAt ?
Or have I overlooked some other subtlety?
-Chap