Re: Reviewing freeze map code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobpkmbNd5HCwYyKu0rMcL3mzEYM78689-Wh=FJFY9BuOw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reviewing freeze map code  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Reviewing freeze map code  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-06-20 16:10:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What exactly is the point of all of that already_marked stuff?
>
> Preventing the old tuple from being locked/updated by another backend,
> while unlocking the buffer.
>
>> I
>> mean, suppose we just don't do any of that before we go off to do
>> toast_insert_or_update and RelationGetBufferForTuple.  Eventually,
>> when we reacquire the page lock, we might find that somebody else has
>> already updated the tuple, but couldn't that be handled by
>> (approximately) looping back up to l2 just as we do in several other
>> cases?
>
> We'd potentially have to undo a fair amount more work: the toasted data
> would have to be deleted and such, just to retry. Which isn't going to
> super easy, because all of it will be happening with the current cid (we
> can't just increase CommandCounterIncrement() for correctness reasons).

Why would we have to delete the TOAST data?  AFAIUI, the tuple points
to the TOAST data, but not the other way around.  So if we change our
mind about where to put the tuple, I don't think that requires
re-TOASTing.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: 10.0
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code