Re: [DOCS] HOT - correct claim about indexes not referencing old line pointers

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 1:05 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > This is why I discovered it: it says "indexes do not reference their
> > page item identifiers", which is manifestly not true when talking
> > about the root item, and in fact would defeat the whole purpose of HOT
> > (at least in a old-to-new chain like Postgres uses).
>
> Yeah, but...that's not what was intended. Obviously, the index hasn't
> changed, and we expect index scans to continue to give correct
> answers. So it is pretty strongly implied that it continues to point
> to something valid.

I took a look at this. I agree with James that the current wording is
just plain wrong.

periodic vacuum operations. (This is possible because indexes
do not reference their <link linkend="storage-page-layout">page
item identifiers</link>.)

Here, the antecedent of "their" is "old versions of updated rows". It
is slightly unclear whether we should interpret this to mean (a) the
tuples together with the line pointers which point to them or (b) only
the tuple data to which the line pointers point. If (a), then it's
wrong because we can't actually get rid of the root line pointer;
rather, we have to change it to a redirect. If (b), then it's wrong
because heap_page_prune() removes dead tuples in this sense whether
HOT is involved or not. I can see no interpretation under which this
statement is true as written.

I reviewed James's proposed alternative:

+ periodic vacuum operations. However because indexes reference the old
+ version's <link linkend="storage-page-layout">page item identifiers</link>
+ the line pointer must remain in place. Such a line pointer has its
+ <literal>LP_REDIRECT</literal> bit set and its offset updated to the
+ <link linkend="storage-page-layout">page item identifiers</link> of
+ the updated row.

I don't think that's really right either. That's true for the root
line pointer, but the phrasing seems to be referring to old versions
generally, which would seem to include not only the root, for which
this is correct, and also all subsequent now-dead row versions, for
which it is wrong.

Here is my attempt:

When a row is updated multiple times, row versions other than the
oldest and the newest can be completely removed during normal
operation, including <command>SELECT</command>s, instead of requiring
periodic vacuum operations. (Indexes always refer to the <link
linkend="storage-page-layout">page item identifiers</link> of the
original row version. The tuple data associated with that row version
is removed, and its item identifier is converted to a redirect that
points to the oldest version that may still be visible to some
concurrent transaction. Intermediate row versions that are no longer
visible to anyone are completely removed, and the associated page item
identifiers are made available for reuse.)

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com