Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdsT_krdbbELv28G=aNGKprxhA8Dvjw5axat=3+6DKwUzA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2016-03-31 20:21:02 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> !     BEGIN_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(bufHdr);
>
> !     Assert(BUF_STATE_GET_REFCOUNT(state) > 0);
> !     wasDirty = (state & BM_DIRTY) ? true : false;
> !     state |= BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED;
> !     if (state == oldstate)
> !             break;

I'm doubtful that this early exit is entirely safe. None of the
preceding operations imply a memory barrier. The buffer could previously
have been marked dirty, but cleaned since. It's pretty critical that we
re-set the dirty bit (there's no danger of loosing it with a barrier,
because we hold an exclusive content lock).

Oh, I get it. 
 
Practically the risk seems fairly low, because acquiring the exclusive
content lock will have implied a barrier. But it seems unlikely to have
a measurable performance effect to me, so I'd rather not add the early
exit.

Ok, let's just remove it.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench randomness initialization