Re: Recovering from detoast-related catcache invalidations
Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiaoran@gmail.com>
From: Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiaoran@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2024-01-13T09:02:15Z
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 →
-
Fix catcache invalidation of a list entry that's being built
- f217c410553d 13.19 landed
- 91fc447c21d3 16.7 landed
- 96e61b2792a5 17.3 landed
- fce17c3a53d6 14.16 landed
- ce7c406f0f8d 15.11 landed
- af8cd1639ab2 18.0 landed
-
Cope with inplace update making catcache stale during TOAST fetch.
- 7a21306aee0a 13.16 landed
- 11f3815d6af8 12.20 landed
- af73e37fa181 14.13 landed
- b08a4b6163eb 15.8 landed
- e4afd7153bd8 16.4 landed
- f9f47f0d93d1 17.0 landed
-
Add previous commit to .git-blame-ignore-revs.
- 36578fa04942 17.0 landed
-
Re-pgindent catcache.c after previous commit.
- d41358f4bbc8 15.6 landed
- d29a4fbacfb7 12.18 landed
- 96c019ffa3f8 17.0 landed
- 7ceeb57baddd 14.11 landed
- 56dcd71decb7 16.2 landed
- 475b3ea3c06b 13.14 landed
-
Cope with catcache entries becoming stale during detoasting.
- db122d426a2d 14.11 landed
- ad98fb14226a 17.0 landed
- 98e03f957436 13.14 landed
- 7e2561e1a258 16.2 landed
- 3b4d85cf159c 12.18 landed
- 2a46a0df4793 15.6 landed
Hmm, how about first checking if any invalidated shared messages have been
accepted, then rechecking the tuple's visibility?
If there is no invalidated shared message accepted during
'toast_flatten_tuple',
there is no need to do then visibility check, then it can save several
CPU cycles.
----
if (inval_count != SharedInvalidMessageCounter &&
!systable_recheck_tuple(scandesc, ntp))
{
heap_freetuple(dtp);
return NULL;
}
----
Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiaoran@gmail.com> 于2024年1月13日周六 13:16写道:
> Great! That's what exactly we need.
>
> The patch LGTM, +1
>
>
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 于2024年1月13日周六 04:47写道:
>
>> I wrote:
>> > This is uncomfortably much in bed with the tuple table slot code,
>> > perhaps, but I don't see a way to do it more cleanly unless we want
>> > to add some new provisions to that API. Andres, do you have any
>> > thoughts about that?
>>
>> Oh! After nosing around a bit more I remembered systable_recheck_tuple,
>> which is meant for exactly this purpose. So v4 attached.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>>