It was just used to pass heap/index relations to
HnswParallelScanAndInsert. I think it was copied from nbtsort.c, which
is more complicated. I don't think we need a struct like this.
(That said, I actually think that we should have a state object that
would hold fields like 'heap', 'index', 'procinfo', 'collation'
etc. Passing that object around would simplify the signatures of many
functions. But that's a different story).
Spinlocks should be held only for a few instructions, for multiple
reasons:
- You have to be very careful not to elog() out while holding a
spinlock, because there is no mechanism to release the spinlock on
error.
- Waiters can waste a lot of cycles spinning if the lock is
contended. I you wait on a spinlock for too long, the PostgreSQL
implementation will actually PANIC, see s_lock_stuck().
The flushLock is particularly problematic. It is held in exclusive
mode, which means it holds a spinlock, over the call to
FlushPages(). FlushPages() performs lots of I/O so it can take a very
long time (>= minutes), and can also easily error out for various
reasons.
allocatorLock would perhaps be OK as a spinlocks, but even that feels
a bit heavy, so I converted that to an LWLock, too.
entryLock is usually held for a very short time, in shared mode, so
that would be fine as a spinlock. However, in the rare case that the
entry point is updated, it's held for a very long time. An LWLock used
in shared mode is about as fast a spinlock, that path is pretty
heavily optimized.
I think we have some problems with the per-element spinlocks too. In
HnswUpdateNeighborPagesInMemory(), it's held over a call to
HnswUpdateConnection(), but HnswUpdateConnection() can error out at
least in case of an out-of-memory error (it uses lappend(), which
calls palloc()). It also calls the distance function, and I don't
think they are guaranteed to be ereport-free either. However, I didn't
address that in this PR, it needs a bit more thinking.
