Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 6:22 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> 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.

I think what you have would work for most people. The key thing for me
is that the wakeups are inhibited _because_ someone else is already
awake. So, you don't have to wake anyone up when you release the lock
because there is already someone awake. Having you explain that
off-list was necessary for me to bridge the gap between RELEASE_NOT_OK
and WAKE_IN_PROGRESS. And I do agree that WAKE_IN_PROGRESS is more
descriptive of when the flag is actually set. RELEASE_NOT_OK doesn't
explain the state or who/when it should be set.

> > 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.

And all those LWLockReleaseAll()s are still needed because we might
hold other LWLocks even though we won't hold them for buffer content
access?

> > +    /* 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?

I was trying to figure out why you left it as a FIXME and didn't just
do it or not do it. I thought maybe it was because you weren't sure if
you wanted to add another helper in addition to UnlockBufHdr().

> > 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 :/

Yea, I suppose that is a bit odd. Though it could be a pattern you
start for organizing gigantic files. I'm overall a +0.7 unless you
explain some other downsides than oddity.

- Melanie