Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums
Date: 2008-10-28 17:30:24
Message-ID: 1225215024.3971.221.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 19:02 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> Yes, but there's a problem with recently inserted tuples:
>
> 1. A query begins in the slave, taking a snapshot with xmax = 100. So
> the effects of anything more recent should not be seen.
> 2. Transaction 100 inserts a tuple in the master, and commits
> 3. A vacuum comes along. There's no other transactions running in the
> master. Vacuum sees that all tuples on the page, including the one just
> inserted, are visible to everyone, and sets PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag.
> 4. The change is replicated to the slave.
> 5. The query in the slave that began at step 1 looks at the page, sees
> that the PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag is set. Therefore it skips the visibility
> checks, and erroneously returns the inserted tuple.

Yep. I was thinking about FSM and row removal. So PD_ALL_VISIBLE must be
separately settable on the standby. Another reason why it should be able
to be set without a VACUUM - since there will never be one on standby.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-10-28 17:36:30 Re: Updating FSM on recovery
Previous Message Hitoshi Harada 2008-10-28 17:23:41 Re: Window Functions: v07 APIs and buffering strateties