Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue

From: "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Arseniy Mukhin" <arseniy(dot)mukhin(dot)dev(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Rishu Bagga" <rishu(dot)postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Yura Sokolov" <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "Daniil Davydov" <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, "Alexandra Wang" <alexandra(dot)wang(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue
Date: 2025-09-24 19:23:08
Message-ID: DD19XJL4GCZ4.2ZURAY378VT6M@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed Sep 24, 2025 at 10:59 AM -03, Arseniy Mukhin wrote:
> Thank you! Speaking of the scenario, my understanding is that it's
> impossible as we hold the global lock, so QueuePosition head should
> always be equal to QUEUE_HEAD when we get into At_AbortNotify(), but
> maybe I'm wrong.
>
Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts about this.

> Patch looks great. Some minor points:
>
> I have a warning when using git am with the patch:
> warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
>
I don't think that this is a problem? And I don't know how to remove
this warning, I've just created the patch with git format-patch @~1

> There is a comment in the head of the async.c file about some
> listen/notify internals. Maybe it's worth adding a comment about how
> aborted transactions do clean up.
>
Added

> What do you think about a Assert in asyncQueueRollbackNotifications()
> that other backends still see us as 'in progress'? So we can be sure
> that they can't process our notifications before we mark notifications
> as 'committed=false'. Not sure how to do it correctly, maybe
>
> Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(MyProc->xid));
>
> will work? The TAP test that I tried to write also should test it.
>
Sounds resanable to me. I think that we could use the following assert
when iterating over the entries, what do you think?
Assert(TransactionIdIsInProgress(qe->xid));

> There are several comments where the word "crash" is used. What do you
> think about using "abort" instead? "Crash" sounds more like PANIC
> situation where we don't care about notifications because they don't
> survive restart.
>
Good point, fixed

> Thank you!
>
Thanks for reviewing this!

--
Matheus Alcantara

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Make-AsyncQueueEntry-s-self-contained.patch text/plain 20.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2025-09-24 19:32:33 Re: Use WALReadFromBuffers in more places
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-09-24 18:35:49 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication