pgsql: Change lock acquisition order in expand_inherited_rtentry. - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Robert Haas
Subject pgsql: Change lock acquisition order in expand_inherited_rtentry.
Date
Msg-id E1gygT9-00081t-OM@gemulon.postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-committers
Change lock acquisition order in expand_inherited_rtentry.

Previously, this function acquired locks in the order using
find_all_inheritors(), which locks the children of each table that it
processes in ascending OID order, and which processes the inheritance
hierarchy as a whole in a breadth-first fashion.  Now, it processes
the inheritance hierarchy in a depth-first fashion, and at each level
it proceeds in the order in which tables appear in the PartitionDesc.
If table inheritance rather than table partitioning is used, the old
order is preserved.

This change moves the locking of any given partition much closer to
the code that actually expands that partition.  This seems essential
if we ever want to allow concurrent DDL to add or remove partitions,
because if the set of partitions can change, we must use the same data
to decide which partitions to lock as we do to decide which partitions
to expand; otherwise, we might expand a partition that we haven't
locked.  It should hopefully also facilitate efforts to postpone
inheritance expansion or locking for performance reasons, because
there's really no way to postpone locking some partitions if
we're blindly locking them all using find_all_inheritors().

The only downside of this change which is known to me is that it
further deviates from the principle that we should always lock the
inheritance hierarchy in find_all_inheritors() order to avoid deadlock
risk.  However, we've already crossed that bridge in commit
9eefba181f7782d27d85d7e94e6028371e7ab2d7 and there are futher patches
pending that make similar changes, so this isn't really giving up
anything that we haven't surrendered already -- and it seems entirely
worth it, given the performance benefits some of those changes seem
likely to bring.

Patch by me; thanks to David Rowley for discussion of these issues.

Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f_eEYVEq5tM8sm1k-HOwG0AyCPwX54XG9x4w0zy_N4Q_Q@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZUwPf_uanjF==gTGBMJrn8uCq52XYvAEorNkLrUdoawg@mail.gmail.com

Branch
------
master

Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/f4b6341d5fcb627d51b3fc89527aa5eaa659fb2e

Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/optimizer/util/inherit.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)


pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Free memory in ecpg bytea regression test.
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Add ExecStorePinnedBufferHeapTuple.