Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes)
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Hi,
On 2026-01-12 17:27:30 -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 12:45 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > Also working on doing comment polishing of the later patches, found a few
> > things, but not quite enough to be worth reposting yet.
>
> I looked at 0004 and 0005 and re-looked at 0006 - 0007.
>
> For 0004, I think you should clarify the commit message a bit. I had
> trouble understanding when WAKE_IN_PROGRESS is set. So, before
> RELEASE_OK was set all the time except when a process woke up and
> hadn't run yet. Now, WAKE_IN_PROGRESS is only set when a process is
> woken up but hasn't run yet. Personally, I just needed a bit more
> specificity (maybe even a bit more formality and grammatically
> correctness) from the commit message to get it.
Is this better?
lwlock: Invert meaning of LW_FLAG_RELEASE_OK
Previously, a flag was set to indicate that a lock release should wake up
waiters. Since waking waiters is the default behavior in the majority of
cases, this logic has been inverted. The new LW_FLAG_WAKE_IN_PROGRESS flag is
now set iff wakeups are explicitly inhibited.
The motivation for this change is that in an upcoming commit, content locks
will be implemented independently of lwlocks, with the lock state stored as
part of BufferDesc.state. As all of a buffer's flags are cleared when the
buffer is invalidated, without this change we would have to re-add the
RELEASE_OK flag after clearing the flags; otherwise, the next lock release
would not wake waiters.
It seems good to keep the implementation of lwlocks and buffer content locks
as similar as reasonably possible.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4csodkvvfbfloxxjlkgsnl2lgfv2mtzdl7phqzd4jxjadxm4o5@usw7feyb5bzf
> I agree that separating 0005 is helpful.
Kewl.
> 0007 looks basically fine to me. I'd comb through it with an AI tool
> to catch a few nits I saw like an outdated reference to RELEASE_OK and
> a missing word in the commit message, etc.
Found a few that way and with some manual searching.
> Otherwise, I mostly looked to see if the wakeup semantics seemed right
> and if anything jumped out at me while skimming (i.e. I didn't go
> through every line with a fine-toothed comb).
>
> The two things I came up with were:
>
> I wondered why this was needed (i.e. why it wasn't needed before)
> @@ -6688,7 +7428,25 @@ ResOwnerReleaseBufferPin(Datum res)
> if (BufferIsLocal(buffer))
> UnpinLocalBufferNoOwner(buffer);
> else
> + {
> + PrivateRefCountEntry *ref;
> +
> + ref = GetPrivateRefCountEntry(buffer, false);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the buffer was locked at the time of the resowner release,
> + * release the lock now. This should only happen after errors.
> + */
> + if (ref->data.lockmode != BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK)
> + {
> + BufferDesc *buf = GetBufferDescriptor(buffer - 1);
> +
> + HOLD_INTERRUPTS(); /* match the upcoming RESUME_INTERRUPTS */
> + BufferLockUnlock(buffer, buf);
> + }
> +
> UnpinBufferNoOwner(GetBufferDescriptor(buffer - 1));
> + }
> }
It's needed because previously content locks were released as part of the
LWLockReleaseAll() that are sprinkled across various error recovery paths. Now
that content locks aren't implemented via lwlocks anymore, something new is needed.
> is it related to your comment in the commit message
> 2) Error recovery for content locks is implemented as part of the
> already existing private-refcount tracking mechanism in combination
> with resowners?
Yes.
> As for your FIXMEs,
> + /*
> + * FIXME: This is reusing the lwlock fields. That's not a correctness
> + * issue, a backend can't wait for both an lwlock and a buffer content
> + * lock at the same time. However, it seems pretty ugly, particularly
> + * given that the field names have an lw* prefix. But duplicating the
> + * fields also seems somewhat superfluous.
> + */
>
> personally I can live with reusing the lwlock fields now that it's
> fairly well documented.
Cool. That's the conclusion I also came to. So unless somebody pipes up soon,
I'll remove the FIXME from the commit message and code.
> + /* XXX: combine with fetch_and above? */
> + UnlockBufHdr(buf_hdr);
>
> Are you thinking about adding a helper that stops waiting and unlocks?
I'm not sure what you mean by that? Just whether I plan to implement the
FIXME?
> > Perhaps move the locking code into a buffer_locking.h or such? Needs to be inline functions for efficiency unfortunately.
>
> So you mean put all of the static buffer locking functions you added
> to bufmgr.c inline into a header file?
Yes, that's what I was wondering about.
> bufmgr.c is super long anyway, so it's not like making it separate
> makes the file manageable. On the other hand, it's probably better to
> not keep making it worse.
Yea. OTOH I don't know if a header that's just included by one file is really
an improvement :/
> For example, I find it really annoying that the helper function prototypes
> for res owner and ref count related functions are grouped before their
> implementations and then below that there is another seemingly arbitrary
> group of prototypes and then their implementations. Like, what is the logic
> there?
I agree it's pretty awful this way. I don't know how the hell that happened,
despite probably being the party to blame (4b4b680c3d6d). Nobody in that
thread commented upon it, it was that way starting in the first version. Odd.
I guess I should propose fixing that :/
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
bufmgr: Fix ordering of checks in PinBuffer()
- c0af4eb4e71e 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Use UnlockReleaseBuffer() in more places
- 8df3c48e466c 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Make UnlockReleaseBuffer() more efficient
- f39cb8c01106 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Don't copy pages while writing out
- 41d3d64e87af 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix use of wrong variable in _hash_kill_items()
- f5eb854ab6d6 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix bug due to confusion about what IsMVCCSnapshot means
- ce5d489166e5 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Switch to standard order in MarkBufferDirtyHint()
- a766125efd60 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Remove the, now obsolete, BM_JUST_DIRTIED
- b0f4ff3c9266 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Require share-exclusive lock to set hint bits and to flush
- 82467f627bd4 19 (unreleased) landed
-
heapam: Don't mimic MarkBufferDirtyHint() in inplace updates
- f4a4ce52c0d1 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Allow conditionally locking of already locked buffer
- 333f586372aa 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Avoid spurious compiler warning after fcb9c977aa5
- 84705b37273d 19 (unreleased) landed
-
lwlock: Remove ForEachLWLockHeldByMe
- 55fbfb738b00 19 (unreleased) landed
-
lwlock: Remove support for disowned lwlwocks
- d40fd85187d0 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Implement buffer content locks independently of lwlocks
- fcb9c977aa5f 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Change BufferDesc.state to be a 64-bit atomic
- dac328c8a682 19 (unreleased) landed
-
lwlock: Improve local variable name
- 556c92a68972 19 (unreleased) landed
-
lwlock: Invert meaning of LW_FLAG_RELEASE_OK
- 9a385f61666c 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Make definitions related to buffer descriptor easier to modify
- ff219c198789 19 (unreleased) landed
-
heapam: Add batch mode mvcc check and use it in page mode
- 0b96e734c590 19 (unreleased) landed
-
freespace: Don't modify page without any lock
- 45f658dacb9c 19 (unreleased) landed
-
heapam: Move logic to handle HEAP_MOVED into a helper function
- 548de59d93d5 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Optimize & harmonize LockBufHdr(), LWLockWaitListLock()
- 09ae2c8bac8d 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Add one-entry cache for private refcount
- 30df61990c67 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Separate keys for private refcount infrastructure
- edbaaea0a95e 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add pg_atomic_unlocked_write_u64
- 7902a47c20b1 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Rename BUFFERPIN wait event class to BUFFER
- 6c5c393b7403 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Turn BUFFER_LOCK_* into an enum
- 156680055dc5 19 (unreleased) landed
-
lwlock: Fix, currently harmless, bug in LWLockWakeup()
- 81f773895321 19 (unreleased) landed
- da3971496531 15.16 landed
- 89c8a1b9069f 16.12 landed
- 427e886a79a5 17.8 landed
- 332693e75969 14.21 landed
- 8082b759d9b5 18.2 landed
-
bufmgr: Use atomic sub for unpinning buffers
- 5310fac6e0fc 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Allow some buffer state modifications while holding header lock
- c75ebc657ffc 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Fix valgrind checking for buffers pinned in StrategyGetBuffer()
- c819d1017ddb 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Don't lock buffer header in StrategyGetBuffer()
- 5e8998592879 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: fewer calls to BufferDescriptorGetContentLock
- 3baae90013df 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Fix signedness of mask variable in BufferSync()
- 2a2e1b470b9b 19 (unreleased) landed
-
bufmgr: Introduce FlushUnlockedBuffer
- 3c2b97b29ee3 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Improve ReadRecentBuffer() scalability
- 819dc118c0f6 19 (unreleased) landed