Re: Recovering from detoast-related catcache invalidations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Xiaoran Wang
Subject Re: Recovering from detoast-related catcache invalidations
Date
Msg-id CAGjhLkMzNfAG=fV=9HqZs_ixOXZax43PhAjNMyfBujjz75kxLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Recovering from detoast-related catcache invalidations  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
This is an interesting idea.
 Although some catalog tables are not in catcaches,
such as pg_depend, when scanning them, if there is any SharedInvalidationMessage, the CatalogSnapshot
will be invalidated and recreated ("RelationInvalidatesSnapshotsOnly" in  syscache.c)
Maybe during the system_scan, it receives the SharedInvalidationMessages and returns the tuples which
are out of date. systable_recheck_tuple is used in dependency.c for such case.



Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 于2024年1月14日周日 03:12写道:
I wrote:
> Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiaoran@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hmm, how about first checking if any invalidated shared messages have been
>> accepted, then rechecking the tuple's visibility?
>> If there is no invalidated shared message accepted during
>> 'toast_flatten_tuple',
>> there is no need to do then visibility check, then it can save several
>> CPU cycles.

> Meh, I'd just as soon not add the additional dependency/risk of bugs.
> This is an expensive and seldom-taken code path, so I don't think
> shaving a few cycles is really important.

It occurred to me that this idea might be more interesting if we
could encapsulate it right into systable_recheck_tuple: something
like having systable_beginscan capture the current
SharedInvalidMessageCounter and save it in the SysScanDesc struct,
then compare in systable_recheck_tuple to possibly short-circuit
that work.  This'd eliminate one of the main bug hazards in the
idea, namely that you might capture SharedInvalidMessageCounter too
late, after something's already happened.  However, the whole idea
only works for catalogs that have catcaches, and the other users of
systable_recheck_tuple are interested in pg_depend which doesn't.
So that put a damper on my enthusiasm for the idea.

                        regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER ROLE documentation improvement
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Documentation to upgrade logical replication cluster