Horton

Re: Is this a problem in GenericXLogFinish()?

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-10-28T11:00:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 03:45:13PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Yes, we need it to exclude any concurrent in-progress scans that could
> return incorrect tuples during bucket squeeze operation.

Thanks.  So I assume that we should just set REGBUF_NO_CHANGE when the
primary and write buffers are the same and there are no tuples to
move.  Say with something like the attached?
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Fix inconsistency with replay of hash squeeze record for clean buffers

  2. Set LSN for wbuf in _hash_freeovflpage() iff wbuf is modified.

  3. Fix an uninitialized access in hash_xlog_squeeze_page().

  4. Use REGBUF_NO_CHANGE at one more place in the hash index.

  5. Assert that buffers are marked dirty before XLogRegisterBuffer().

  6. Fix bug in GenericXLogFinish().

  7. Improve hash index bucket split behavior.