Message-ID: <70fc3ad6-8c38-d8d7-b690-a1c01f9b1683@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:05:51 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: BUG #17949: Adding an index introduces serialisation anomalies.
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org,
 Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>
References: 
 <CA+hUKG+zAbVgU91ZjkaCd=1AFOaMRbOp0=E9DP0BwippqqGx5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKG+3B7uBkJd4rr2FXhTc+95F3RvRovbhBM2UDt68aL5a-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGJATT51T0Vkg0FDkQa5boQv-WoqL1_KM=313ySu0MVqig@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230619121757.gjvuvypp25ngwkux@ddolgov.remote.csb>
 <CA+hUKGJP3g6PF4vES0X0zy34uuSvHxHUhoq65A_WtzqxPpJ_6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGJQ5ijziJtnrZfo8-8dmfiCU8nJBTnpkVweBp2krN_6Ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGKRD5UM6mEDkre-yhm9Smr4ampf-5=NeFkAqi-jRt4RYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230621090421.4rr55ybndttng7xl@ddolgov.remote.csb>
 <CA+hUKGJKTCGShnj0ZRhHsmOuHtZ-udZu8jN+GJ2-7YCSGnDYzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230623140542.5tbeg5ikz3cupag3@ddolgov.remote.csb>
 <20230624135910.zufuollwp57otawo@ddolgov.remote.csb>
 <CA+hUKGKmR57CgZAPRjeSQfXb_oxjSUx7673SqDRw9RF2FfCw=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4638fef6-ea51-0e0e-d463-d5269575b021@iki.fi>
 <CA+hUKGKmrBFy-Z7XTHv6o5EV7WEhoscyTqyf=LTBeGjNoYnOkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKG+DkBG4gBy_5+vj31ySHJB4XWgaaA4y=coosGf2Qz81yQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Artem Anisimov <artem.anisimov.255@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+hUKG+DkBG4gBy_5+vj31ySHJB4XWgaaA4y=coosGf2Qz81yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/70fc3ad6-8c38-d8d7-b690-a1c01f9b1683%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Thomas,


thank you for the fixes. I've looked up the patches in pg's git repo, 
and they got me wondering: where is the repo with pg tests? I'd be 
really uneasy to make changes to concurrency-related code without a 
decent testsuite to verify them.


Best regards,

Artem.


On 04/07/2023 01:02, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:18 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'll push these in a couple of days if there are no further comments.
> Done.
>
> Thanks Artem, Dmitry and Heikki.
>
> I wonder how we might be more systematic about this.  There are some
> general principles that were not respected here, but I'm not sure if
> they're even written down let alone defended with code.  Something to
> think about.
>
> It's not great to add a new use of BufferGetBlockNumber() (in terms of
> false sharing just to get a value that we must have had moment earlier
> in order to pin the buffer), but we do that all the time.  That seems
> like a micro-optimisation worth looking into in some systematic way
> across all AMs.