public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH v47 2/7] Add conditional lock feature to dshash 2+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH v47 2/7] Add conditional lock feature to dshash @ 2020-03-13 07:58 Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Kyotaro Horiguchi @ 2020-03-13 07:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Dshash currently waits for lock unconditionally. It is inconvenient when we want to avoid being blocked by other processes. This commit adds alternative functions of dshash_find and dshash_find_or_insert that allows immediate return on lock failure. --- src/backend/lib/dshash.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------- src/include/lib/dshash.h | 3 ++ 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/lib/dshash.c b/src/backend/lib/dshash.c index 520bfa0979..853d78b528 100644 --- a/src/backend/lib/dshash.c +++ b/src/backend/lib/dshash.c @@ -383,6 +383,10 @@ dshash_get_hash_table_handle(dshash_table *hash_table) * the caller must take care to ensure that the entry is not left corrupted. * The lock mode is either shared or exclusive depending on 'exclusive'. * + * If found is not NULL, *found is set to true if the key is found in the hash + * table. If the key is not found, *found is set to false and a pointer to a + * newly created entry is returned. + * * The caller must not lock a lock already. * * Note that the lock held is in fact an LWLock, so interrupts will be held on @@ -392,36 +396,7 @@ dshash_get_hash_table_handle(dshash_table *hash_table) void * dshash_find(dshash_table *hash_table, const void *key, bool exclusive) { - dshash_hash hash; - size_t partition; - dshash_table_item *item; - - hash = hash_key(hash_table, key); - partition = PARTITION_FOR_HASH(hash); - - Assert(hash_table->control->magic == DSHASH_MAGIC); - Assert(!hash_table->find_locked); - - LWLockAcquire(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partition), - exclusive ? LW_EXCLUSIVE : LW_SHARED); - ensure_valid_bucket_pointers(hash_table); - - /* Search the active bucket. */ - item = find_in_bucket(hash_table, key, BUCKET_FOR_HASH(hash_table, hash)); - - if (!item) - { - /* Not found. */ - LWLockRelease(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partition)); - return NULL; - } - else - { - /* The caller will free the lock by calling dshash_release_lock. */ - hash_table->find_locked = true; - hash_table->find_exclusively_locked = exclusive; - return ENTRY_FROM_ITEM(item); - } + return dshash_find_extended(hash_table, key, exclusive, false, false, NULL); } /* @@ -439,31 +414,60 @@ dshash_find_or_insert(dshash_table *hash_table, const void *key, bool *found) { - dshash_hash hash; - size_t partition_index; - dshash_partition *partition; + return dshash_find_extended(hash_table, key, true, false, true, found); +} + + +/* + * Find the key in the hash table. + * + * "exclusive" is the lock mode in which the partition for the returned item + * is locked. If "nowait" is true, the function immediately returns if + * required lock was not acquired. "insert" indicates insert mode. In this + * mode new entry is inserted and set *found to false. *found is set to true if + * found. "found" must be non-null in this mode. + */ +void * +dshash_find_extended(dshash_table *hash_table, const void *key, + bool exclusive, bool nowait, bool insert, bool *found) +{ + dshash_hash hash = hash_key(hash_table, key); + size_t partidx = PARTITION_FOR_HASH(hash); + dshash_partition *partition = &hash_table->control->partitions[partidx]; + LWLockMode lockmode = exclusive ? LW_EXCLUSIVE : LW_SHARED; dshash_table_item *item; - hash = hash_key(hash_table, key); - partition_index = PARTITION_FOR_HASH(hash); - partition = &hash_table->control->partitions[partition_index]; - - Assert(hash_table->control->magic == DSHASH_MAGIC); - Assert(!hash_table->find_locked); + /* must be exclusive when insert allowed */ + Assert(!insert || (exclusive && found != NULL)); restart: - LWLockAcquire(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partition_index), - LW_EXCLUSIVE); + if (!nowait) + LWLockAcquire(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partidx), lockmode); + else if (!LWLockConditionalAcquire(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partidx), + lockmode)) + return NULL; + ensure_valid_bucket_pointers(hash_table); /* Search the active bucket. */ item = find_in_bucket(hash_table, key, BUCKET_FOR_HASH(hash_table, hash)); if (item) - *found = true; + { + if (found) + *found = true; + } else { - *found = false; + if (found) + *found = false; + + if (!insert) + { + /* The caller didn't told to add a new entry. */ + LWLockRelease(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partidx)); + return NULL; + } /* Check if we are getting too full. */ if (partition->count > MAX_COUNT_PER_PARTITION(hash_table)) @@ -479,7 +483,8 @@ restart: * Give up our existing lock first, because resizing needs to * reacquire all the locks in the right order to avoid deadlocks. */ - LWLockRelease(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partition_index)); + LWLockRelease(PARTITION_LOCK(hash_table, partidx)); + resize(hash_table, hash_table->size_log2 + 1); goto restart; @@ -493,12 +498,13 @@ restart: ++partition->count; } - /* The caller must release the lock with dshash_release_lock. */ + /* The caller will free the lock by calling dshash_release_lock. */ hash_table->find_locked = true; - hash_table->find_exclusively_locked = true; + hash_table->find_exclusively_locked = exclusive; return ENTRY_FROM_ITEM(item); } + /* * Remove an entry by key. Returns true if the key was found and the * corresponding entry was removed. diff --git a/src/include/lib/dshash.h b/src/include/lib/dshash.h index a6ea377173..5b8114d041 100644 --- a/src/include/lib/dshash.h +++ b/src/include/lib/dshash.h @@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ extern void *dshash_find(dshash_table *hash_table, const void *key, bool exclusive); extern void *dshash_find_or_insert(dshash_table *hash_table, const void *key, bool *found); +extern void *dshash_find_extended(dshash_table *hash_table, const void *key, + bool exclusive, bool nowait, bool insert, + bool *found); extern bool dshash_delete_key(dshash_table *hash_table, const void *key); extern void dshash_delete_entry(dshash_table *hash_table, void *entry); extern void dshash_release_lock(dshash_table *hash_table, void *entry); -- 2.27.0 ----Next_Part(Thu_Jan_21_12_03_48_2021_284)-- Content-Type: Text/X-Patch; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="v47-0003-Make-archiver-process-an-auxiliary-process.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: More data files / forks @ 2022-01-12 00:28 Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Tomas Vondra @ 2022-01-12 00:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Cleveland <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers On 1/11/22 19:39, Chris Cleveland wrote: > I'm working on a table access method that stores indexes in a structure > that looks like an LSM tree. Changes get written to small segment files, > which then get merged into larger segment files. > > It's really tough to manage these files using existing fork/buffer/page > files, because when you delete a large segment it leaves a lot of empty > space. It's a lot easier to write the segments into separate files on > disk and then delete them as needed. > And is that empty space actually a problem? You can reuse that for new data, no? It's a bit like empty space in regular data files - we could try keeping it much lower, but it'd be harmful in practice. > I could do that, but then I lose the advantages of having data in native > Postgres files, including support for buffering and locking. > > It's important to have the segments stored contiguously on disk. I've > benchmarked it; it makes a huge performance difference. > Yeah, I'm sure it's beneficial for sequential scans, readahead, etc. But you can get most of that benefit by smart allocation strategy - instead of working with individual pages, allocate larger chunks of pages. So instead of grabbing pages one by one, "reserve" them in e.g. 1MB chunks, or something. Not sure how exactly you do the book-keeping, ofc. I wonder if BRIN might serve as an inspiration, as it maintains revmap and actual index tuples in the same fork. Not the same thing, but perhaps similar? The other thing that comes to mind is logtape.c, which works with multiple "logical tapes" stored in a single file - a bit like the segments you're talking about. But maybe the assumptions about segments being written/read exactly once is too limiting for your use case. > Questions: > > 1. Are there any other disadvantages to storing data in my own files on > disk, instead of in files managed by Postgres? > Well, you simply don't get many of the built-in benefits you mentioned, various tools may not expect that, and so on. > 2. Is it possible to increase the number of forks? I could store each > level of the LSM tree in its own fork very efficiently. Forks could get > truncated as needed. A dozen forks would handle it nicely. > You're right the number of forks is fixed, and it's one of the places that's not extensible. I don't recall any proposals to change that, though, and even if we decided to do that, I doubt we'd allow the number of forks to be entirely dynamic. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-01-12 00:28 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-03-13 07:58 [PATCH v47 2/7] Add conditional lock feature to dshash Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]> 2022-01-12 00:28 Re: More data files / forks Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox