Hi!
Thanks, Alexander!
> 8 дек. 2018 г., в 6:54, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
> Yep, please find attached draft patch.
Patch seems good to me, I'll check it in more detail.
The patch gets posting item at FirstOffsetNumber instead of btree->getLeftMostChild(). This seem OK, since
dataGetLeftMostPage()is doing just the same, but with few Assert()s.
> BTW, it seems that I've another bug in GIN. README says that
>
> "However, posting trees are only
> fully searched from left to right, starting from the leftmost leaf. (The
> tree-structure is only needed by insertions, to quickly find the correct
> insert location). So as long as we don't delete the leftmost page on each
> level, a search can never follow a downlink to page that's about to be
> deleted."
>
> But that's not really true once we teach GIN to skip parts of posting
> trees in PostgreSQL 9.4. So, there might be a risk to visit page to
> be deleted using downlink. But in order to get real problem, vacuum
> should past cleanup stage and someone else should reuse this page,
> before we traverse downlink. Thus, the risk of real problem is very
> low. But it still should be addressed.
There's a patch above in this thread 0001-Use-correct-locking-protocol-during-GIN-posting-tree.patch where I propose
stampingevery deleted page with GinPageSetDeleteXid(page, ReadNewTransactionId()); and avoid reusing the page before
TransactionIdPrecedes(GinPageGetDeleteXid(page),RecentGlobalDataXmin).
Should we leave alone this bug for future fixes to keep current fix noninvasive?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.