| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | solai v <solai(dot)cdac(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [SP-]GiST IOS visibility bug (was: Why doens't GiST require super-exclusive lock) |
| Date: | 2026-08-03 13:40:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2Wi1FhPC0zkR1pz+Bzzpy2b45PoJPET+RkJcXE8tT7dvkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 at 19:02, Mihail Nikalayeu
<mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I am working on a stress-test framework and was trying to use it to
> reproduce this bug.
> It reproduced, but SP-GiST failed after the fix was applied.
> I haven't validated it carefully, sorry, but I think it will be helpful.
Yeah, that was me using the TID in the downlink-equivalent tuple,
rather than that of the leaf tuple, for the visibility check, and that
obviously will cause correctness issues.
Attached v3, which fixes that, and hopefully also fixes the
fallthrough compiler warning that cfbot has been reporting. Thanks for
the report!
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
Databricks (https://www.databricks.com)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Expose-visibility-checking-shim-for-index-usage.patch | application/x-patch | 12.9 KB |
| v3-0003-SP-GIST-Fix-visibility-issues-in-IOS.patch | application/x-patch | 10.4 KB |
| v3-0002-GIST-Fix-visibility-issues-in-IOS.patch | application/x-patch | 6.5 KB |
| v3-0004-Test-for-IOS-Vacuum-race-conditions-in-index-AMs.patch | application/x-patch | 11.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-08-03 13:42:22 | Re: Checkpoint replication slots later |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2026-08-03 13:36:36 | Re: WAL compression setting after PostgreSQL LZ4 default change |