On 2022/02/01 17:27, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> * Similar to relation extension, page locks are also held for a short
>> * duration, so imposing such a restriction won't hurt.
>
> I don't believe a path involving vacuum_delay_point() calls is
> short-duration'ed.
Yes.
>> One thing that really bothers me about commit e2c79e14 is that
>> LockPage() is called, not LockBuffer(). GIN had no LockPage() calls
>> before that commit, and is now the only code in the entire system that
>> calls LockPage()/ConditionalLockPage() (the hash am no longer uses
>> page heavyweight locks following recent work there).
>
> I agree to the discussion. Can't we use other mechanism here to get
> rid of the Lockpage()?
I have no good idea for that yet, but I agree it's better to get rid of page level lock.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
