On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'll review after that, since I have other things to review meanwhile.
>>
>> Attached, please find the rebased patch attached with this e-mail.
>> There is no fundamental change in patch except for adapting the new
>> locking strategy in squeeze operation. I have done the sanity testing
>> of the patch with master-standby setup and Kuntal has helped me to
>> verify it with his wal-consistency checker patch.
>
> This patch again needs a rebase,
>
I had completed it yesterday night and kept it for night long tests to
check the sanity of the patch, but I guess now I need another rebase.
Anyway, I feel this is all for the betterment of final patch.
> but before you do that I'd like to
> make it harder by applying the attached patch to remove
> _hash_chgbufaccess(), which I think is a bad plan for more or less the
> same reasons that motivated the removal of _hash_wrtbuf() in commit
> 25216c98938495fd741bf585dcbef45b3a9ffd40. I think there's probably
> more simplification and cleanup that can be done afterward in the wake
> of this; what I've done here is just a mechanical replacement of
> _hash_chgbufaccess() with LockBuffer() and/or MarkBufferDirty().
The patch has replaced usage of HASH_READ/HASH_WRITE with
BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE/BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE which will make hash code
using two types of defines for the same purpose. Now, we can say that
it is better to replace HASH_READ/HASH_WRITE in whole hash index code
or maybe the usage this patch is introducing is okay, however, it
seems like btree is using similar terminology (BT_READ/BT_WRITE).
Other than that your patch looks good.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com