Re: [SP-]GiST IOS visibility bug (was: Why doens't GiST require super-exclusive lock)

From: solai v <solai(dot)cdac(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(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>, Haibo Yan <tristan(dot)yim(at)gmail(dot)com>, Surya Poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [SP-]GiST IOS visibility bug (was: Why doens't GiST require super-exclusive lock)
Date: 2026-10-06 08:52:40
Message-ID: CAF0whuer3cwTmun-u6BreEWJjAU8F36h=VHpDpAwg5AoHhUxhA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Paul,

I tested the v4 patch series on REL_19_STABLE.

Here are my test results:

- v4-0001 through v4-0004 applied cleanly.
- PostgreSQL built successfully.
- 'make check' passed with 239/239 tests.
- The isolation test suite passed with 135/135 tests with the complete
v4 series.
- The new GiST and SP-GiST IOS/VACUUM tests passed for both sorted and
unsorted scans.
- I also tested the new v4-0004 regression tests on unpatched
REL_19_STABLE. In that case, 2 of 135 isolation tests failed:
- 'index-only-scan-gist-vacuum'
- 'index-only-scan-spgist-vacuum'
- Without the fixes, both tests returned the 9 rows that had been
deleted before VACUUM, instead of the expected 0 rows.
- With the complete v4 series applied, both tests passed and returned
the expected 0 rows after VACUUM.
- I also checked the SP-GiST visibility check and confirmed that it
uses 'leafTuple->heapPtr' for the visibility check.

And one observation on my review is that the isolation tests force
enable_indexonlyscan = true and disable bitmap scans, but they do not
explicitly verify the selected plan with EXPLAIN.

Overall, the v4 series passed my testing, and the new regression tests
correctly exposed the issue on the unpatched code.

Regards,
Solai

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sergei Patiakin 2026-10-06 09:19:42 Re: Session in aborted transaction misses effective_wal_level change
Previous Message Haruna Miwa 2026-10-06 08:30:25 Re: [PATCH] psql: avoid CREATE command completion after GRANT/REVOKE CREATE