public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Noah Misch <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 15:38:34 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <i5tu7pc4xs3u4wt2abpe3gzb2gzd3gn4civ62fdggdc45qsfhu@hdhm6k3txxgp>
References: <pmto7djq64mei53p7r5smfync2waittilhbuzc7j7lpflf2b3y@laz7r76y5pux>
<CAEze2WjeK9CY003S4dmCugv_H4tz9AaXgnqW+wTc=BaPDg+2xg@mail.gmail.com>
<3je3ahgf7rrmmurxo6hnlhg5d3ffwfrtjwjxd6jm5srlv5iebp@vxqk5qtgmowr>
<3w7v3w6a57jnssokap4k7thoekig72flnyhd4wp3yftzdd7lm7@f6lpcfen6hr7>
<6rgb2nvhyvnszz4ul3wfzlf5rheb2kkwrglthnna7qhe24onwr@vw27225tkyar>
<CAAKRu_ZcZCXNUWfhEg4qOYuRO8T1x3_gvaUFFrwgCfY0RnVhkg@mail.gmail.com>
<3nce7i72ayzkunai6mkz24ckbxk74jodz4ua2chcdrwppxlxcd@w6x5kfkjrkru>
<CAAKRu_bsQ5KmtAjFsOEHGZCiirp_wgTPyfAQfsyJsGU=g7rkCQ@mail.gmail.com>
<uuukiok2b5gbbae6blokwim2ohxxvp5235epd5zrbc5d3fojb6@vsqee77athye>
<[email protected]>
<i5tu7pc4xs3u4wt2abpe3gzb2gzd3gn4civ62fdggdc45qsfhu@hdhm6k3txxgp>
On 02/12/2025 15:20, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-12-02 10:01:06 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> But speaking of that: why do we not allow two processes to concurrently set
>> hint bits on a page anymore?
>
> It'd make the locking a lot more complicated without much of a benefit.
>
> The new share-exclusive lock mode only requires one additional bit of lock
> state, for the single allowed holder. If we wanted a new lockmode that
> prevented the page from being written out concurrently, but could be held
> multiple times, we'd need at least MAX_BACKENDS bits for the lock level
> allowing hint bits to be set and another lock level to acquire while writing
> out the buffer.
>
> At the same time, there seems to be little benefit in setting hint bits on a
> page concurrently. A very common case is that the same hint bit(s) would be
> set by multiple backends, we don't gain anything from that. And in the cases
> where hint bits were intended to be set for different tuples, the window in
> which that is not allowed is very narrow, and the cost of not setting right in
> that moment is pretty small and the cost of not setting the hint bit right
> then and there isn't high.
>
> Makes sense?
Yep, makes sense. Would be good to put that in a comment somewhere, and
in the commit message. "We could allow multiple backends to set hint
bits concurrently, but it'd make the lock implementation more complicated"
- Heikki
view thread (57+ 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], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes)
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