Re: serializable lock consistency

On Dec20, 2010, at 18:54 , Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote:
>> For me, this is another very good reason to explore this further. Plus, it
>> improves the ratio of grotty-ness vs. number-of-problems-soved ;-)
> 
> By all means, look into it further.  I fear the boat is filling up
> with water, but if you manage to come up with a workable solution I'll
> be as happy as anyone, promise!

I'll try to create a details proposal. To do that, however, I'll require
some guidance on whats acceptable and whats not. 

Here's a summary of the preceding discussion

To deal with aborted transactions correctly, we need to track the last
locker of a particular tuple that actually committed. If we also want
to fix the bug that causes a row lock to be lost upon doing
lock;savepoint;update;restore that "latest committed locker" will 
sometimes need to be a set, since it'll need to store the outer
transaction's xid as well as the latest actually committed locker.

As long as no transaction aborts are involved, the tuple's xmax
contains all the information we need. If a transaction updates,
deletes or locks a row, the previous xmax is overwritten. If the
transaction later aborts, we cannot decide whether it has previously
been locked or not.

And these ideas have come up

A) Transactions who merely lock a row could put the previous  locker's xid (if >= GlobalXmin) *and* their own xid into
amulti-xid,  and store that in xmax. For shared locks, this merely means cleaning  out the existing multi-xid a bit
lessaggressively. There's  no risk of bloat there, since we only need to keep one committed  xid, not all of them. For
exclusivelocks, we currently never  create a multi-xid. That'd change, we'd need to create one  if we find a previous
lockerwith an xid >= GlobalXmin. This doesn't  solve the UPDATE and DELETE cases. For SELECT-FOR-SHARE this  is
probablythe best option, since it comes very close to what  we do currently.
 

B) A transaction who UPDATEs or DELETEs a tuple could create an  intermediate lock-only tuple which'd contain the
necessary information about previous lock holders. We'd only need to do  that if there actually is one with xid >=
GlobalXmin.We could  then choose whether to do the same for SELECT-FOR-UPDATE, or  whether we'd prefer to go with (A)
 

C) The ctid field is only necessary for updated tuples. We could thus  overlay it with a field which stores the last
committedlocker after  a DELETE. UPDATEs could be handled either as in (B), or by storing the  information in the
ctid-overlayin the *new* tuple. SELECT-FOR-UPDATE  could again either also use the ctid overlay or use (A).
 

D) We could add a new tuple header field xlatest. To support binary  upgrade, we'd need to be able to read tuples
withoutthat field  also. We could then either create a new tuple version upon the  first lock request to such a tuple
(whichwould then include the  new header), or we could simply raise a serialization error if  a serializable
transactiontried to update a tuple without the  field whose xmax was aborted and >= GlobalXmin.
 

I have the nagging feeling that (D) will meet quite some resistance. (C) was
too well received either, though I wonder if that'd change if the grotty-ness
was hidden behind a API, much xvac/cmin/cmax overlay is. (B) seems like a
lot of overhead, but maybe cleaner. More research is needed though to check
how it'd interact with HOT and how to get the locking right. (A) is IMHO the
best solution for the SELECT-FOR-SHARE since it's very close to what we do
today.

Any comments? Especially of the "don't you dare" kind?

best regards,
Florian Pflug