|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Wood, Dan" <hexpert(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Wong, Yi Wen" <yiwong(at)amazon(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Old row version in hot chain become visible after a freeze|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > Otherwise, we risk marking the page as all-frozen, and it would be
> > skipped by vacuum. If we never come around to HOT-pruning the page, a
> > non-permanent xid (or a multixact? not sure that that can happen;
> > probably not) would linger unnoticed and cause a DoS condition later
> > ("cannot open file pg_clog/1234") when the tuple header is read.
> Yes, you are definitely right here.
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > Another thing is that if you're going through heap_copy_data, the tuple
> > is only checked for DEAD, not RECENTLY_DEAD. Maybe there is no bug here
> > but I'm not sure yet.
> Not sure to what you are referring here. Perhaps heap_prune_chain()?
> It seems to me that it does the right thing.
I meant copy_heap_data, which also "freezes" tuples while copying the
heap. In the end, I concluded the fact that it runs with access
exclusive lock is sufficient protection. I was worried that in the
future we might improve that code and enable it to run without AEL, but
after looking at it a little more, it sounds like a big enough project
that this is going to be the least of its troubles.
Anyway, in order to test this, I tried running this one-liner (files
psql -f /tmp/repro.sql ; for i in `seq 1 50`; do psql --no-psqlrc -f /tmp/lock.sql & done
(I also threw in a small sleep between heap_page_prune and
HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum while testing, just to widen the problem window
to hopefully make any remaining problems more evident.)
This turned up a few different failure modes, which I fixed until no
further problems arose. With the attached patch, I no longer see any
failures (assertion failures) or misbehavior (additional rows), in a few
dozen runs, which were easy to come by with the original code. The
resulting patch, which I like better than the previously proposed idea
of skipping the freeze, takes the approach of handling freeze correctly
for the cases where the tuple still exists after pruning.
I also tweaked lazy_record_dead_tuple to fail with ERROR if the tuple
cannot be recorded, as observed by Yi Wen. AFAICS that's not reachable
because of the way the array is allocated, so an elog(ERROR) is
I regret my inability to turn the oneliner into a committable test case,
but I think that's beyond what I can do for now.
FWIW running this against 9.2 I couldn't detect any problems, which I
suppose was expected. Changing the lock mode in the test file to FOR
SHARE I only see an enormous amount of deadlocks reported (which makes
me confident that doing multixact stuff in 9.3 was a good thing, despite
what bug chasers may think.)
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2017-09-11 17:03:51||Re: BUG #14808: V10-beta4, backend abort|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2017-09-11 13:18:41||Re: BUG #14808: V10-beta4, backend abort|