On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 7.
>>>> _hash_kill_items(IndexScanDesc scan)
>>>> {
>>>> ..
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If page LSN differs it means that the page was modified since the
>>>> + * last read. killedItems could be not valid so LP_DEAD hints apply-
>>>> + * ing is not safe.
>>>> + */
>>>> + page = BufferGetPage(buf);
>>>> + if (PageGetLSN(page) != so->currPos.lsn)
>>>> + {
>>>> + _hash_relbuf(rel, buf);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> ..
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> How does this check cover the case of unlogged tables?
>>>
>>> Thanks for putting that point. It doesn't cover the case for unlogged
>>> tables. As suggested by you in one of your email in this mailing list, i am
>>> now not allowing vacuum to release lock on current page before acquiring
>>> lock on next page for unlogged tables. This will ensure that scan is always
>>> behind vacuum if they are running on the same bucket simultaneously.
>>> Therefore, there is danger in marking tuples as dead for unlogged pages even
>>> if they are not having any lsn.
>>>
>>
>
> Once again, Thank you for reviewing my patches.
>
>> In the last line, I guess you wanted to say "there is *no* danger
>> ..."?
>
> Yes, i meant that because, it ensures that scan will always be following VACUUM.
>
> Today, while again thinking about this part of the patch
>> (_hash_kill_items) it occurred to me that we can't rely on a pin on an
>> overflow page to guarantee that it is not modified by Vacuum.
>> Consider a case where vacuum started vacuuming the bucket before the
>> scan and then in-between scan overtakes it. Now, it is possible that
>> even if a scan has a pin on a page (and no lock), vacuum might clean
>> that page, if that happens, then we can't prevent the reuse of TID.
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> I think, you are talking about non-mvcc scan case, because in case of
> mvcc scans, even if we have released both pin and lock on a page,
> VACUUM can't remove tuples from a page if it is visible to some
> concurrently running transactions (mvcc scan in our case).
>
I am talking about tuples that are marked as dead in heap. It has
nothing to do with the visibility of tuple or type of scan (mvcc or
non-mvcc).
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com