On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2016 11:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 2016-09-02 08:31:42 +0530, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> >>>> I wonder whether we ought to just switch from the consistent method to >>>> the semiconsistent method and call it good. >>> >>> >>> +1. I think, before long, we're going to have to switch away from having >>> locks & partitions in the first place. So I don't see a problem relaxing >>> this. It's not like that consistency really buys you anything... I'd >>> even consider not using any locks. >> >> I think we certainly want to lock the buffer header, because otherwise >> we might get a torn read of the buffer tag, which doesn't seem good. >> But it's not obvious to me that there's any point in taking the lock >> on the buffer mapping partition; I'm thinking that doesn't really do >> anything unless we lock them all, and we all seem to agree that's >> going too far. > > +1 from me to only locking the buffer headers. IMHO that's perfectly fine > for the purpose of this extension.
So, I think we have agreement on the way forward here, but what we don't have is a committable patch. I'm willing to commit one before the end of this CommitFest if somebody produces one RSN; otherwise, this is going to have to go into the "Returned with Feedback" bucket. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
