Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-03-17T13:02:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow page lock to conflict among parallel group members.

  2. Allow relation extension lock to conflict among parallel group members.

  3. Add assert to ensure that page locks don't participate in deadlock cycle.

  4. Assert that we don't acquire a heavyweight lock on another object after

  5. Fix unsafe usage of strerror(errno) within ereport().

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 5:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:24 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> +
> + /*
> + * Indicate that the lock is released for certain types of locks
> + */
> +#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
> + CheckAndSetLockHeld(locallock, false);
> +#endif
>  }
>
>  /*
> @@ -1618,6 +1666,11 @@ GrantLockLocal(LOCALLOCK *locallock, ResourceOwner owner)
>   locallock->numLockOwners++;
>   if (owner != NULL)
>   ResourceOwnerRememberLock(owner, locallock);
> +
> + /* Indicate that the lock is acquired for certain types of locks. */
> +#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING
> + CheckAndSetLockHeld(locallock, true);
> +#endif
>  }
>
> There is no need to sprinkle USE_ASSERT_CHECKING at so many places,
> having inside the new function is sufficient.  I have changed that,
> added few more comments and
> made minor changes.  See, what you think about attached?

Your changes look fine to me.  I have also verified all the test and
everything works fine.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com