Re: Minmax indexes

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-08-08T09:01:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I think there's a race condition in mminsert, if two backends insert a 
tuple to the same heap page range concurrently. mminsert does this:

1. Fetch the MMtuple for the page range
2. Check if any of the stored datums need updating
3. Unlock the page.
4. Lock the page again in exclusive mode.
5. Update the tuple.

It's possible that two backends arrive at phase 3 at the same time, with 
different values. For example, backend A wants to update the minimum to 
contain 10, and and backend B wants to update it to 5. Now, if backend B 
gets to update the tuple first, to 5, backend A will update the tuple to 
10 when it gets the lock, which is wrong.

The simplest solution would be to get the buffer lock in exclusive mode 
to begin with, so that you don't need to release it between steps 2 and 
5. That might be a significant hit on concurrency, though, when most of 
the insertions don't in fact have to update the value. Another idea is 
to re-check the updated values after acquiring the lock in exclusive 
mode, to see if they match the previous values.

- Heikki



Commits

  1. Refactor per-page logic common to all redo routines to a new function.

  2. Reduce use of heavyweight locking inside hash AM.

  3. Scan the buffer pool just once, not once per fork, during relation drop.

  4. Major patch from Thomas Lockhart <Thomas.G.Lockhart@jpl.nasa.gov>