Re: FSM Corruption (was: Could not read block at end of the relation)

Le dimanche 7 avril 2024, 00:30:37 CEST Noah Misch a écrit :
> Your v3 has the right functionality. As further confirmation of the fix, I
> tried reverting the non-test parts of commit 917dc7d "Fix WAL-logging of FSM
> and VM truncation". That commit's 008_fsm_truncation.pl fails with 917dc7d
> reverted from master, and adding this patch makes it pass again. I ran
> pgindent and edited comments. I think the attached version is ready to go.
>

Thank you Noah, the updated comments are much better. I think it should be
backported at least to 16 since the chances of tripping on that behaviour are
quite high here, but what about previous versions ?

> While updating comments in FreeSpaceMapPrepareTruncateRel(), I entered a
> rabbit hole about the comments 917dc7d left about torn pages. I'm sharing
> these findings just in case it helps a reader of the $SUBJECT patch avoid
> the same rabbit hole. Both fsm and vm read with RBM_ZERO_ON_ERROR, so I
> think they're fine with torn pages. Per the README sentences I'm adding,
> FSM could stop writing WAL. I'm not proposing that, but I do bet it's the
> right thing. visibilitymap_prepare_truncate() has mirrored fsm truncate
> since 917dc7d. The case for removing WAL there is clearer still, because
> parallel function visibilitymap_clear() does not write WAL. I'm attaching
> a WIP patch to remove visibilitymap_prepare_truncate() WAL. I'll abandon
> that or pursue it for v18, in a different thread.

That's an interesting finding.

> If I were continuing the benchmark study, I would try SSD, a newer kernel,
> and/or shared_buffers=48GB. Instead, since your perf results show only
> +0.01% CPU from new lseek() calls, I'm going to stop there and say it's
> worth taking the remaining risk that some realistic scenario gets a
> material regression from those new lseek() calls.

Agree with you here.

Many thanks,

--
Ronan Dunklau