Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks
| От | Michail Nikolaev |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANtu0ogqNyceN0WCS186OnBLhw71xzwGDUw+Yk3Qt4J9TcM_mg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks (Michail Nikolaev <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks
Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello, Yura.
A one additional moment:
> 1332: Assert((oldFlags & (BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER | BM_IO_IN_PROGRESS)) == 0);
> 1333: CLEAR_BUFFERTAG(buf->tag);
> 1334: buf_state &= ~(BUF_FLAG_MASK | BUF_USAGECOUNT_MASK);
> 1335: UnlockBufHdr(buf, buf_state);
I think there is no sense to unlock buffer here because it will be
locked after a few moments (and no one is able to find it somehow). Of
course, it should be unlocked in case of collision.
BTW, I still think is better to introduce some kind of
hash_update_hash_key and use it.
It may look like this:
// should be called with oldPartitionLock acquired
// newPartitionLock hold on return
// oldPartitionLock and newPartitionLock are not taken at the same time
// if newKeyPtr is present - existingEntry is removed
bool hash_update_hash_key_or_remove(
HTAB *hashp,
void *existingEntry,
const void *newKeyPtr,
uint32 newHashValue,
LWLock *oldPartitionLock,
LWLock *newPartitionLock
);
Thanks,
Michail.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: