v9-0001-Allow-error-or-refusal-while-absorbing-barriers.patch

From 5f1ec1b1aa8d26c3d81bec9e65207861fd0dcb86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amul Sul <amul.sul@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:27:53 -0400
Subject: [PATCH v9 1/5] Allow error or refusal while absorbing barriers.

Patch by Robert Haas
---
 src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c
index ffe67acea1c..63cb70bcaa4 100644
--- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c
@@ -87,12 +87,16 @@ typedef struct
 #define BARRIER_SHOULD_CHECK(flags, type) \
 	(((flags) & (((uint32) 1) << (uint32) (type))) != 0)
 
+/* Clear the relevant type bit from the flags. */
+#define BARRIER_CLEAR_BIT(flags, type) \
+	((flags) &= ~(((uint32) 1) << (uint32) (type)))
+
 static ProcSignalHeader *ProcSignal = NULL;
 static volatile ProcSignalSlot *MyProcSignalSlot = NULL;
 
 static bool CheckProcSignal(ProcSignalReason reason);
 static void CleanupProcSignalState(int status, Datum arg);
-static void ProcessBarrierPlaceholder(void);
+static bool ProcessBarrierPlaceholder(void);
 
 /*
  * ProcSignalShmemSize
@@ -486,17 +490,59 @@ ProcessProcSignalBarrier(void)
 	flags = pg_atomic_exchange_u32(&MyProcSignalSlot->pss_barrierCheckMask, 0);
 
 	/*
-	 * Process each type of barrier. It's important that nothing we call from
-	 * here throws an error, because pss_barrierCheckMask has already been
-	 * cleared. If we jumped out of here before processing all barrier types,
-	 * then we'd forget about the need to do so later.
-	 *
-	 * NB: It ought to be OK to call the barrier-processing functions
-	 * unconditionally, but it's more efficient to call only the ones that
-	 * might need us to do something based on the flags.
+	 * If there are no flags set, then we can skip doing any real work.
+	 * Otherwise, establish a PG_TRY block, so that we don't lose track of
+	 * which types of barrier processing are needed if an ERROR occurs.
 	 */
-	if (BARRIER_SHOULD_CHECK(flags, PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_PLACEHOLDER))
-		ProcessBarrierPlaceholder();
+	if (flags != 0)
+	{
+		PG_TRY();
+		{
+			/*
+			 * Process each type of barrier. The barrier-processing functions
+			 * should normally return true, but may return false if the barrier
+			 * can't be absorbed at the current time. This should be rare,
+			 * because it's pretty expensive.  Every single
+			 * CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() will return here until we manage to
+			 * absorb the barrier, and that cost will add up in a hurry.
+			 *
+			 * NB: It ought to be OK to call the barrier-processing functions
+			 * unconditionally, but it's more efficient to call only the ones
+			 * that might need us to do something based on the flags.
+			 */
+			if (BARRIER_SHOULD_CHECK(flags, PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_PLACEHOLDER)
+				&& ProcessBarrierPlaceholder())
+				BARRIER_CLEAR_BIT(flags, PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_PLACEHOLDER);
+		}
+		PG_CATCH();
+		{
+			/*
+			 * If an ERROR occurred, add any flags that weren't yet handled
+			 * back into pss_barrierCheckMask, and reset the global variables
+			 * so that we try again the next time we check for interrupts.
+			 */
+			pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32(&MyProcSignalSlot->pss_barrierCheckMask,
+								   flags);
+			ProcSignalBarrierPending = true;
+			InterruptPending = true;
+
+			PG_RE_THROW();
+		}
+		PG_END_TRY();
+
+		/*
+		 * If some barrier was not successfully absorbed, we will have to try
+		 * again later.
+		 */
+		if (flags != 0)
+		{
+			pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32(&MyProcSignalSlot->pss_barrierCheckMask,
+								   flags);
+			ProcSignalBarrierPending = true;
+			InterruptPending = true;
+			return;
+		}
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * State changes related to all types of barriers that might have been
@@ -508,7 +554,7 @@ ProcessProcSignalBarrier(void)
 	pg_atomic_write_u64(&MyProcSignalSlot->pss_barrierGeneration, shared_gen);
 }
 
-static void
+static bool
 ProcessBarrierPlaceholder(void)
 {
 	/*
@@ -518,7 +564,12 @@ ProcessBarrierPlaceholder(void)
 	 * appropriately descriptive. Get rid of this function and instead have
 	 * ProcessBarrierSomethingElse. Most likely, that function should live in
 	 * the file pertaining to that subsystem, rather than here.
+	 *
+	 * The return value should be 'true' if the barrier was successfully
+	 * absorbed and 'false' if not. Note that returning 'false' can lead to
+	 * very frequent retries, so try hard to make that an uncommon case.
 	 */
+	return true;
 }
 
 /*
-- 
2.22.0