Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Wood, Dan" <hexpert(at)amazon(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple
Date: 2017-10-04 01:13:24
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzn8-zMQyNf07vTp=WW6oVZwTBoNbypjKrygixCn-o-3jg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> FYI, the repro case page contents looks like this with the patch applied:
>> postgres=# select lp, lp_flags, t_xmin, t_xmax, t_ctid,
>> to_hex(t_infomask) as infomask,
>> to_hex(t_infomask2) as infomask2
>> from heap_page_items(get_raw_page('t', 0));
>> lp | lp_flags | t_xmin | t_xmax | t_ctid | infomask | infomask2
>> ----+----------+---------+--------+--------+----------+-----------
>> 1 | 1 | 1845995 | 0 | (0,1) | b02 | 3
>> 2 | 2 | | | | |
>> 3 | 0 | | | | |
>> 4 | 0 | | | | |
>> 5 | 0 | | | | |
>> 6 | 0 | | | | |
>> 7 | 1 | 1846001 | 0 | (0,7) | 2b02 | 8003
>> (7 rows)
>
> Is lp_off for tid (0,2) pointing to (0,7)? A hot chain preserved is
> what would look correct to me.

Yes, it is:

postgres=# select * from bt_page_items('foo', 1);
itemoffset | ctid | itemlen | nulls | vars | data
------------+-------+---------+-------+------+-------------------------
1 | (0,1) | 16 | f | f | 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
2 | (0,2) | 16 | f | f | 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
(2 rows)

I can tell from looking at my hex editor that the 4 bytes of ItemId
that we see for position '(0,2)' in the ItemId array are "07 00 01
00", meaning that '(0,2)' this is a LP_REDIRECT item, repointing us to
'(0,7)'. Everything here looks sane to me, at least at first blush.

> - * Check the tuple XMIN against prior XMAX, if any
> - */
> - if (TransactionIdIsValid(priorXmax) &&
> - !TransactionIdEquals(HeapTupleHeaderGetXmin(htup), priorXmax))
> - break;
> If you remove this check, you could also remove completely priorXmax.
>
> Actually, I may be missing something, but why is priorXmax updated
> even for dead tuples? For example just doing that is also taking care
> of the problem:

I'll study what you suggest here some more tomorrow.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-10-04 01:19:56 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple
Previous Message Wood, Dan 2017-10-04 01:09:53 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-10-04 01:19:56 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple
Previous Message Wood, Dan 2017-10-04 01:09:53 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple