On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 8:46 AM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> I seem to repeatedly get backends of which the xmin is set from
> InvalidTransactionId to some value < min(ProcGlobal->xids), which then
> result in shared_oldest_nonremovable (and others) being less than the
> value of their previous iteration. This leads to the infinite loop in
> lazy_scan_prune (it stores and uses one value of
> *_oldest_nonremovable, whereas heap_page_prune uses a more up-to-date
> variant).
> I noticed that when this happens, generally a parallel vacuum worker
> is involved.
Hmm. That is plausible. The way that VACUUM (and concurrent index
builds) avoid being seen via the PROC_IN_VACUUM thing is pretty
delicate. Wouldn't surprise me if the parallel VACUUM issue subtly
broke lazy_scan_prune in the way that we see here.
What about testing? Can we find a simple way of reducing this
complicated repro to a less complicated repro with a failing
assertion? Maybe an assertion that we get to keep after the bug is
fixed?
--
Peter Geoghegan