Hi,
On 2019-10-04 15:24:37 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-10-04 14:43:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I think there's a good case to be made to backpatch the tests further
> > > than 12, but I'm not sure about it? They do pass (with one error message
> > > about a failure to delete changed to a failure to update, we didn't use
> > > to be able to discern) back to 9.6, requiring
> >
> > I did push the tests back to 9.6.
>
> There's a few ordering violations in the tests, e.g.:
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=crake&dt=2019-10-04%2021%3A51%3A13
I've now disabled that portion of the test. It look to me like this
might be a subtle upsert bug. What happens is that in the
isolationtester sequence (all operating on one row, and all already in a
transaction):
"s1_upd_a_data" "s3_upd_a_data" "s2_upsert_a_data" "s1_upd_a_data" "s1_c" "s3_del_a" "s3_c" "s2_c"
sometimes the s2_upsert_a_data gets to update the row before the
s3_upd_a_data. That does *not* happen with a plain update, even though
there's at that point always a target row to operate on (i.e. this
happens before s3_del_a is reached). I think the cause for that might be
that the check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint() check done for upsert
(via ExecCheckIndexConstraints() in ExecInsert()) does a
XactLockTableWait() without, like heapam.c would, ordering via a tuple
lock.
Since it's clearly not 12 specific, and not really related to triggers /
EPQ, I think disabling it for now is a sensible choice.
> key-a val-a-s1-ups1-ups1
> step s1_c: COMMIT;
> -s3: NOTICE: upd: text key-a = text key-a: t
> -s3: NOTICE: upk: text val-a-s1-ups1-ups1 <> text mismatch: t
> -s3: NOTICE: trigger: name rep_b_u; when: BEFORE; lev: ROWs; op: UPDATE; old: (key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1) new:
(key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1-ups3)
> -s3: NOTICE: trigger: name rep_a_u; when: AFTER; lev: ROWs; op: UPDATE; old: (key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1) new:
(key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1-ups3)
> -step s3_upd_a_data: <... completed>
> +s2: NOTICE: upd: text key-a = text key-a: t
> +s2: NOTICE: upk: text val-a-s1-ups1-ups1 <> text mismatch: t
> +s2: NOTICE: trigger: name rep_b_u; when: BEFORE; lev: ROWs; op: UPDATE; old: (key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1) new:
(key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1-upserts2)
> +s2: NOTICE: trigger: name rep_a_u; when: AFTER; lev: ROWs; op: UPDATE; old: (key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1) new:
(key-a,val-a-s1-ups1-ups1-upserts2)
> +step s2_upsert_a_data: <... completed>
> key data
>
> I was under the assumption that it'd be deterministic who gets to
> continue with a speculative insertion, but that ain't so.
This was a preliminary theory, a wrong one: Speculative insertions
aren't actually involved, see above...
Greetings,
Andres Freund