On 01/30/2014 12:46 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
I think I see some bugs in _bt_moveright(). If you examine
_bt_finish_split() in detail, you'll see that it doesn't just drop the
write buffer lock that the caller will have provided (per its
comments) - it also drops the buffer pin. It calls _bt_insert_parent()
last, which was previously only called last thing by _bt_insertonpg()
(some of the time), and _bt_insertonpg() is indeed documented to drop
both the lock and the pin. And if you look at _bt_moveright() again,
you'll see that there is a tacit assumption that the buffer pin isn't
dropped, or at least that "opaque" (the BTPageOpaque BT special page
area pointer) continues to point to the same page held in the same
buffer, even though the code doesn't set the "opaque' pointer again
and it may not point to a pinned buffer or even the appropriate
buffer. Ditto "page". So "opaque" may point to the wrong thing on
subsequent iterations - you don't do anything with the return value of
_bt_getbuf(), unlike all of the existing call sites. I believe you
should store its return value, and get the held page and the special
pointer on the page, and assign that to the "opaque" pointer before
the next iteration (an iteration in which you very probably really do
make progress not limited to completing a page split, the occurrence
of which the _bt_moveright() loop gets "stuck on"). You know, do what
is done in the non-split-handling case. It may not always be the same
buffer as before, obviously.

Yep, fixed.

Can you explain what the fix was, please?

Ping? I would like to hear some details here.

I refactored the loop in _bt_moveright to, well, not have that bug anymore. The 'page' and 'opaque' pointers are now fetched at the beginning of the loop. Did I miss something?

- Heikki


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to