@@ -88,15 +88,31 @@ IndexOnlyNext(IndexOnlyScanState *node)
88
88
* Note on Memory Ordering Effects: visibilitymap_test does not lock
89
89
* the visibility map buffer, and therefore the result we read here
90
90
* could be slightly stale. However, it can't be stale enough to
91
- * matter. It suffices to show that (1) there is a read barrier
92
- * between the time we read the index TID and the time we test the
93
- * visibility map; and (2) there is a write barrier between the time
94
- * some other concurrent process clears the visibility map bit and the
95
- * time it inserts the index TID. Since acquiring or releasing a
96
- * LWLock interposes a full barrier, this is easy to show: (1) is
97
- * satisfied by the release of the index buffer content lock after
98
- * reading the TID; and (2) is satisfied by the acquisition of the
99
- * buffer content lock in order to insert the TID.
91
+ * matter.
92
+ *
93
+ * We need to detect clearing a VM bit due to an insert right away,
94
+ * because the tuple is present in the index page but not visible. The
95
+ * reading of the TID by this scan (using a shared lock on the index
96
+ * buffer) is serialized with the insert of the TID into the index
97
+ * (using an exclusive lock on the index buffer). Because the VM bit
98
+ * is cleared before updating the index, and locking/unlocking of the
99
+ * index page acts as a full memory barrier, we are sure to see the
100
+ * cleared bit if we see a recently-inserted TID.
101
+ *
102
+ * Deletes do not update the index page (only VACUUM will clear out
103
+ * the TID), so the clearing of the VM bit by a delete is not
104
+ * serialized with this test below, and we may see a value that is
105
+ * significantly stale. However, we don't care about the delete right
106
+ * away, because the tuple is still visible until the deleting
107
+ * transaction commits or the statement ends (if it's our
108
+ * transaction). In either case, the lock on the VM buffer will have
109
+ * been released (acting as a write barrier) after clearing the
110
+ * bit. And for us to have a snapshot that includes the deleting
111
+ * transaction (making the tuple invisible), we must have acquired
112
+ * ProcArrayLock after that time, acting as a read barrier.
113
+ *
114
+ * It's worth going through this complexity to avoid needing to lock
115
+ * the VM buffer, which could cause significant contention.
100
116
*/
101
117
if (!visibilitymap_test (scandesc -> heapRelation ,
102
118
ItemPointerGetBlockNumber (tid ),
0 commit comments