Make queries' locking of indexes more consistent.
The assertions added by commit b04aeb0a exposed that there are some code paths wherein the executor will try to open an index without holding any lock on it. We do have some lock on the index's table, so it seems likely that there's no fatal problem with this (for instance, the index couldn't get dropped from under us). Still, it's bad practice and we should fix it. To do so, remove the optimizations in ExecInitIndexScan and friends that tried to avoid taking a lock on an index belonging to a target relation, and just take the lock always. In non-bug cases, this will result in no additional shared-memory access, since we'll find in the local lock table that we already have a lock of the desired type; hence, no significant performance degradation should occur. Also, adjust the planner and executor so that the type of lock taken on an index is always identical to the type of lock taken for its table, by relying on the recently added RangeTblEntry.rellockmode field. This avoids some corner cases where that might not have been true before (possibly resulting in extra locking overhead), and prevents future maintenance issues from having multiple bits of logic that all needed to be in sync. In addition, this change removes all core calls to ExecRelationIsTargetRelation, which avoids a possible O(N^2) startup penalty for queries with large numbers of target relations. (We'd probably remove that function altogether, were it not that we advertise it as something that FDWs might want to use.) Also adjust some places in selfuncs.c to not take any lock on indexes they are transiently opening, since we can assume that plancat.c did that already. In passing, change gin_clean_pending_list() to take RowExclusiveLock not AccessShareLock on its target index. Although it's not clear that that's actually a bug, it seemed very strange for a function that's explicitly going to modify the index to use only AccessShareLock. David Rowley, reviewed by Julien Rouhaud and Amit Langote, a bit of further tweaking by me Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/19465.1541636036@sss.pgh.pa.us
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment