Re: ResourceOwner refactoring

Hi,

On 2022-11-01 12:39:39 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > 1) As far as I can tell, the way ResourceOwnerReleaseAll() now works seems to
> >     assume that within a phase the reset order does not matter. I don't think
> >     that's a good assumption. I e.g. have a patch to replace InProgressBuf with
> >     resowner handling, and in-progress IO errors should be processed before
> >     before pins are released.
> 
> Hmm. Currently, you're not supposed to hold any resources at commit. You get
> warnings about resource leaks if a resource owner is not empty on
> ResourceOwnerReleaseAll(). On abort, does the order matter? I'm not familiar
> with your InProgressBuf patch, but I guess you could handle the in-progress
> IO errors in ReleaseBuffer().

I was thinking about doing that as well, but it's not really trivial to know
about the in-progress IO at that time, without additional tracking (which
isn't free).


> If we do need to worry about release order, perhaps add a "priority" or
> "phase" to each resource kind, and release them in priority order. We
> already have before- and after-locks as phases, but we could generalize
> that.
> 
> However, I feel that trying to enforce a particular order moves the
> goalposts. If we need that, let's add it as a separate patch later.

Like Robert, I think that the patch is moving the goalpost...


> > 2) There's quite a few resource types where we actually don't need an entry in
> >     an array, because we can instead add a dlist_node to the resource -
> >     avoiding memory overhead and making removal cheap. I have a few pending
> >     patches that use that approach, and this doesn't really provide a path for
> >     that anymore.
> 
> Is that materially better than using the array?

It's safe in critical sections. I have a, not really baked but promising,
patch to make WAL writes use AIO. There's no way to know the number of
"asynchronous IOs" needed before entering the critical section.


> The fast path with an array is very fast. If it is better, perhaps we should
> bite the bullet and require a dlist node and use that mechanism for all
> resource types?

I don't think it's suitable for all - you need an exclusively owned region of
memory to embed a list in. That works nicely for some things, but not others
(e.g. buffer pins).

Greetings,

Andres Freund