On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Right, I was thinking from the perspective of the index entry. Before
>> marking index entry as dead, we do check for heaptid. So, as heaptid
>> can't be reused via Page-at-a-time index vacuum, scan won't mark index
>> entry as dead.
>
> It can mark index entries dead, but if it does, they correspond to
> heap TIDs that are still dead, as opposed to heap TIDs that have been
> resurrected by being reused for an unrelated tuple.
>
> In other words, the danger scenario is this:
>
> 1. A page-at-a-time scan records all the TIDs on a page.
> 2. VACUUM processes the page, removing some of those TIDs.
> 3. VACUUM finishes, changing the heap TIDs from dead to unused.
> 4. Somebody inserts a new tuple at one of the existing TIDs, and the
> index tuple gets put on the page scanned in step 1.
> 5. The page-at-a-time scan resumes and kills the tuple added in step 4
> by mistake, when it really only intended to kill a tuple removed in
> step 2.
>
> What prevent this is:
>
> A. To begin scanning a bucket, VACUUM needs a cleanup lock on the
> primary bucket page. Therefore, there are no scans in progress at the
> time that VACUUM begins scanning the bucket.
>
> B. If a scan begins scanning the bucket, it can't pass VACUUM, because
> VACUUM doesn't release the page lock on one page before taking the one
> for the next page.
>
> C. After 0003, it becomes possible for a scan to pass VACUUM if the
> table is permanent, but it won't be a problem because of the LSN
> check.
>
That's right. So, in short, this patch handles the problemetic scenario.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers