On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Shubham Barai <shubhambara...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 3 October 2017 at 00:32, Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Borodin <amborodi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Alexander Korotkov
>>> <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>>> > What happen if exactly this "continue" fires?
>>> >
>>> >> if (GistFollowRight(stack->page))
>>> >> {
>>> >> if (!xlocked)
>>> >> {
>>> >> LockBuffer(stack->buffer, GIST_UNLOCK);
>>> >> LockBuffer(stack->buffer, GIST_EXCLUSIVE);
>>> >> xlocked = true;
>>> >> /* someone might've completed the split when we unlocked */
>>> >> if (!GistFollowRight(stack->page))
>>> >> continue;
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In this case we might get xlocked == true without calling
>>> > CheckForSerializableConflictIn().
>>> Indeed! I've overlooked it. I'm remembering this issue, we were
>>> considering not fixing splits if in Serializable isolation, but
>>> dropped the idea.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, current insert algorithm assumes that split must be fixed before we
>> can correctly traverse the tree downwards.
>>
>>
>>> CheckForSerializableConflictIn() must be after every exclusive lock.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure, that fixing split is the case to necessary call
>> CheckForSerializableConflictIn(). This lock on leaf page is not taken
>> to do modification of the page. It's just taken to ensure that nobody else
>> is fixing this split the same this. After fixing the split, it might
>> appear that insert would go to another page.
>>
>> > I think it would be rather safe and easy for understanding to more
>>> > CheckForSerializableConflictIn() directly before gistinserttuple().
>>> The difference is that after lock we have conditions to change page,
>>> and before gistinserttuple() we have actual intent to change page.
>>>
>>> From the point of future development first version is better (if some
>>> new calls occasionally spawn in), but it has 3 calls while your
>>> proposal have 2 calls.
>>> It seems to me that CheckForSerializableConflictIn() before
>>> gistinserttuple() is better as for now.
>>>
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>
> I have updated the location of CheckForSerializableConflictIn() and
> changed the status of the patch to "needs review".
>
Now, ITSM that predicate locks and conflict checks are placed right for now.
However, it would be good to add couple comments to gistdoinsert() whose
would state why do we call CheckForSerializableConflictIn() in these
particular places.
I also take a look at isolation tests. You made two separate test specs:
one to verify that serialization failures do fire, and another to check
there are no false positives.
I wonder if we could merge this two test specs into one, but use more
variety of statements with different keys for both inserts and selects.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
