public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
To: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <[email protected]>
To: Pavan Deolasee <[email protected]>
To: Jeff Janes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: hio.c does visibilitymap_pin()/IO while holding buffer lock
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 14:34:25 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
On 3/25/23 03:57, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Starting with
>
> commit 7db0cd2145f2bce84cac92402e205e4d2b045bf2
> Author: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
> Date: 2021-01-17 22:11:39 +0100
>
> Set PD_ALL_VISIBLE and visibility map bits in COPY FREEZE
>
That's a bummer :-(
> RelationGetBufferForTuple does
>
> /*
> * The page is empty, pin vmbuffer to set all_frozen bit.
> */
> if (options & HEAP_INSERT_FROZEN)
> {
> Assert(PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(BufferGetPage(buffer)) == 0);
> visibilitymap_pin(relation, BufferGetBlockNumber(buffer), vmbuffer);
> }
>
> while holding a buffer lock. visibilitymap_pin() reads pages, if vmbuffer
> doesn't already point to the right block.
>
>
> The lock ordering rules are to lock VM pages *before* locking heap pages.
>
>
> I think the reason this hasn't yet bitten us badly, is that INSERT_FROZEN
> effectively requires that the relation is access exclusive locked. There
> shouldn't be other backends locking multiple buffers in the relation (bgwriter
> / checkpointer can lock a single buffer at a time, but that's it).
>
Right. Still, it seems a bit fragile ...
>
> I see roughly two ways forward:
>
> 1) We add a comment explaining why it's safe to violate lock ordering rules in
> this one situation
>
Possible, although I feel uneasy about just documenting a broken rule.
Would be better to maintain the locking order.
> 2) Change relevant code so that we only return a valid vmbuffer if we could do
> so without blocking / IO and, obviously, skip updating the VM if we
> couldn't get the buffer.
>
I don't recall the exact details about the vm locking/pinning, but can't
we just ensure we actually follow the proper locking order? I mean, this
only deals with new pages, requested at line ~624:
buffer = ReadBufferBI(relation, P_NEW, RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK, bistate);
Can't we ensure we actually lock the vm buffer too in ReadBufferBI,
before calling ReadBufferExtended? Or am I confused and that's not
possible for some reason?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
view thread (4+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: hio.c does visibilitymap_pin()/IO while holding buffer lock
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox