<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title>61.4. Index Locking Considerations</title><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="stylesheet.css" /><link rev="made" href="pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" /><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets Vsnapshot" /><link rel="prev" href="index-scanning.html" title="61.3. Index Scanning" /><link rel="next" href="index-unique-checks.html" title="61.5. Index Uniqueness Checks" /></head><body><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/transitional" class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="5" align="center">61.4. Index Locking Considerations</th></tr><tr><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="index-scanning.html" title="61.3. Index Scanning">Prev</a> </td><td width="10%" align="left"><a accesskey="u" href="indexam.html" title="Chapter 61. Index Access Method Interface Definition">Up</a></td><th width="60%" align="center">Chapter 61. Index Access Method Interface Definition</th><td width="10%" align="right"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html" title="PostgreSQL 11.5 Documentation">Home</a></td><td width="10%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="index-unique-checks.html" title="61.5. Index Uniqueness Checks">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr></hr></div><div class="sect1" id="INDEX-LOCKING"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both">61.4. Index Locking Considerations</h2></div></div></div><p>
Index access methods must handle concurrent updates
of the index by multiple processes.
The core <span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> system obtains
<code class="literal">AccessShareLock</code> on the index during an index scan, and
<code class="literal">RowExclusiveLock</code> when updating the index (including plain
<code class="command">VACUUM</code>). Since these lock types do not conflict, the access
method is responsible for handling any fine-grained locking it might need.
An exclusive lock on the index as a whole will be taken only during index
creation, destruction, or <code class="command">REINDEX</code>.
</p><p>
Building an index type that supports concurrent updates usually requires
extensive and subtle analysis of the required behavior. For the b-tree
and hash index types, you can read about the design decisions involved in
<code class="filename">src/backend/access/nbtree/README</code> and
<code class="filename">src/backend/access/hash/README</code>.
</p><p>
Aside from the index's own internal consistency requirements, concurrent
updates create issues about consistency between the parent table (the
<em class="firstterm">heap</em>) and the index. Because
<span class="productname">PostgreSQL</span> separates accesses
and updates of the heap from those of the index, there are windows in
which the index might be inconsistent with the heap. We handle this problem
with the following rules:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" style="list-style-type: disc; "><li class="listitem"><p>
A new heap entry is made before making its index entries. (Therefore
a concurrent index scan is likely to fail to see the heap entry.
This is okay because the index reader would be uninterested in an
uncommitted row anyway. But see <a class="xref" href="index-unique-checks.html" title="61.5. Index Uniqueness Checks">Section 61.5</a>.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
When a heap entry is to be deleted (by <code class="command">VACUUM</code>), all its
index entries must be removed first.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
An index scan must maintain a pin
on the index page holding the item last returned by
<code class="function">amgettuple</code>, and <code class="function">ambulkdelete</code> cannot delete
entries from pages that are pinned by other backends. The need
for this rule is explained below.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
Without the third rule, it is possible for an index reader to
see an index entry just before it is removed by <code class="command">VACUUM</code>, and
then to arrive at the corresponding heap entry after that was removed by
<code class="command">VACUUM</code>.
This creates no serious problems if that item
number is still unused when the reader reaches it, since an empty
item slot will be ignored by <code class="function">heap_fetch()</code>. But what if a
third backend has already re-used the item slot for something else?
When using an MVCC-compliant snapshot, there is no problem because
the new occupant of the slot is certain to be too new to pass the
snapshot test. However, with a non-MVCC-compliant snapshot (such as
<code class="literal">SnapshotAny</code>), it would be possible to accept and return
a row that does not in fact match the scan keys. We could defend
against this scenario by requiring the scan keys to be rechecked
against the heap row in all cases, but that is too expensive. Instead,
we use a pin on an index page as a proxy to indicate that the reader
might still be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">in flight</span>”</span> from the index entry to the matching
heap entry. Making <code class="function">ambulkdelete</code> block on such a pin ensures
that <code class="command">VACUUM</code> cannot delete the heap entry before the reader
is done with it. This solution costs little in run time, and adds blocking
overhead only in the rare cases where there actually is a conflict.
</p><p>
This solution requires that index scans be <span class="quote">“<span class="quote">synchronous</span>”</span>: we have
to fetch each heap tuple immediately after scanning the corresponding index
entry. This is expensive for a number of reasons. An
<span class="quote">“<span class="quote">asynchronous</span>”</span> scan in which we collect many TIDs from the index,
and only visit the heap tuples sometime later, requires much less index
locking overhead and can allow a more efficient heap access pattern.
Per the above analysis, we must use the synchronous approach for
non-MVCC-compliant snapshots, but an asynchronous scan is workable
for a query using an MVCC snapshot.
</p><p>
In an <code class="function">amgetbitmap</code> index scan, the access method does not
keep an index pin on any of the returned tuples. Therefore
it is only safe to use such scans with MVCC-compliant snapshots.
</p><p>
When the <code class="structfield">ampredlocks</code> flag is not set, any scan using that
index access method within a serializable transaction will acquire a
nonblocking predicate lock on the full index. This will generate a
read-write conflict with the insert of any tuple into that index by a
concurrent serializable transaction. If certain patterns of read-write
conflicts are detected among a set of concurrent serializable
transactions, one of those transactions may be canceled to protect data
integrity. When the flag is set, it indicates that the index access
method implements finer-grained predicate locking, which will tend to
reduce the frequency of such transaction cancellations.
</p></div><div class="navfooter"><hr /><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td width="40%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="index-scanning.html">Prev</a> </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="u" href="indexam.html">Up</a></td><td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="index-unique-checks.html">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">61.3. Index Scanning </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html">Home</a></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"> 61.5. Index Uniqueness Checks</td></tr></table></div></body></html>
