Re: Write skew observed under serializable isolation

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Write skew observed under serializable isolation
Date: 2026-09-23 08:29:20
Message-ID: CAN4CZFOfQL_nOs2ukYf-CkcdP6EOQHu0dx2A+a90F+KDqajLKg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello!

- /* one of SO_TYPE_* may be specified */
+ /*
+ * One of SO_TYPE_* may be specified. When adding a scan type, check
+ * whether it must take predicate locks to be safe under SERIALIZABLE: see
+ * the flag test in heap_beginscan() and "Heap locking" in
+ * src/backend/storage/lmgr/README-SSI.
+ */

A wider llm-audit based on this claim pointed out that there's one
more preexisting issue: a tid scan that probes a tid holding no tuple
takes no predicate lock of any kind, so a concurrent INSERT that
materialises a tuple at exactly that TID creates no rw-conflict.

I'm not sure what's the proper solution for this, and if it even
should be part of this patch or something separate (as this patch is a
clear improvement even with this leftover issue), but it seems to be
at least worth a mention in a comment/commit message to state the
limitation?

An isolation test reproducing the problem:

setup
{
create table ta (id int);
insert into ta values (1), (2);
create table tb (id int);
insert into tb values (1), (2);
}
teardown { drop table ta; drop table tb; }

session s1
setup { begin isolation level serializable; set enable_seqscan = off; }
step r1 { select count(*) from tb where ctid = '(0,3)'; }
step w1 { insert into ta values (100); }
step c1 { commit; }

session s2
setup { begin isolation level serializable; set enable_seqscan = off; }
step r2 { select count(*) from ta where ctid = '(0,3)'; }
step w2 { insert into tb values (200); }
step c2 { commit; }

permutation r1 r2 w1 w2 c1 c2

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2026-09-23 08:36:10 Re: [PATCH] Misleading error message for REPACK USING INDEX on shared catalogs
Previous Message Thom Brown 2026-09-23 08:26:22 Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) can silently lose updates when the toast table is rewritten