On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'll review after that, since I have other things to review meanwhile. >> >> Attached, please find the rebased patch attached with this e-mail. >> There is no fundamental change in patch except for adapting the new >> locking strategy in squeeze operation. I have done the sanity testing >> of the patch with master-standby setup and Kuntal has helped me to >> verify it with his wal-consistency checker patch. > > This patch again needs a rebase, >
I had completed it yesterday night and kept it for night long tests to check the sanity of the patch, but I guess now I need another rebase. Anyway, I feel this is all for the betterment of final patch. > but before you do that I'd like to > make it harder by applying the attached patch to remove > _hash_chgbufaccess(), which I think is a bad plan for more or less the > same reasons that motivated the removal of _hash_wrtbuf() in commit > 25216c98938495fd741bf585dcbef45b3a9ffd40. I think there's probably > more simplification and cleanup that can be done afterward in the wake > of this; what I've done here is just a mechanical replacement of > _hash_chgbufaccess() with LockBuffer() and/or MarkBufferDirty(). The patch has replaced usage of HASH_READ/HASH_WRITE with BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE/BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE which will make hash code using two types of defines for the same purpose. Now, we can say that it is better to replace HASH_READ/HASH_WRITE in whole hash index code or maybe the usage this patch is introducing is okay, however, it seems like btree is using similar terminology (BT_READ/BT_WRITE). Other than that your patch looks good. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers