Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQwTZHow0M0bDnWoinjTh28x+UzYjWTT_rWcuQLwgFSfw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag  (Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the patch attached fixes the problem by changing BufferAlloc() in
> such a way that initialization forks are permanently written to disk,
> which is what you are suggesting. As a simple fix for back-branches
> that's enough, though on HEAD I think that we should really rework the
> empty() routines so as the write goes through shared buffers first,
> that seems more solid than relying on the sgmr routines to do this
> work. Robert, what do you think?

Attached is what I have in mind for HEAD. btree, gist, spgist and
bloom indexes are changed so as the init forks created go through the
shared buffers instead of having their empty() routines handle the
flush of the page created. This removes any kind of race conditions
between the checkpointer and the init fork creations, which is I think
a good thing.

Here are the tests I have done.
First running those commands to create all types of indexes.
create extension bloom;
create extension btree_gist;
create extension btree_gin;
create unlogged table foo (a int);
create index foo_bt on foo(a);
create index foo_bloom on foo using bloom(a);
create index foo_gin on foo using gin (a);
create index foo_gist on foo using gist (a);
create index foo_brin on foo using brin (a);
create unlogged table foo_geo (a box);
create index foo_spgist ON foo_geo using spgist(a);
checkpoint;

Then crash the server, restart it, and the following vacuums are able
to complete.
vacuum foo;
vacuum foo_geo;

I have as well created a CF entry for this set of patches:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/13/971/

Thanks,
-- 
Michael

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
Next
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: [HACKERS] PSQL commands:\quit_if, \quit_unless)