From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ildar Musin <ildar(at)adjust(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Duplicated LSN in ReorderBuffer |
Date: | 2019-07-08 14:46:41 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCav3kOsGoEpRvm9KFZ6nJ4LPqyLhT13ab4jvFbFf8txg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:00 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:46 AM Ildar Musin <ildar(at)adjust(dot)com> wrote:
> > Attached is a simple patch that uses subxid instead of top-level xid
> > in ReorderBufferAddNewTupleCids() call. It seems to fix the bug, but
> > i'm not sure that this is a valid change. Can someone please verify it
> > or maybe suggest a better solution for the issue?
>
I've reproduced this issue with script Ildar provided. I don't find
out the root cause yet and I'm not sure the patch takes a correct way
to fix this.
In my environment, I got the following pg_waldump output and the
logical decoding failed at 0/019FA058 when processing NEW_CID.
90489 rmgr: Transaction len (rec/tot): 38/ 38, tx:
1999, lsn: 0/019F9E80, prev 0/019F9E38, desc: ASSIGNMENT xtop 1998:
subxacts: 1999
90490 rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 405/ 405, tx:
0, lsn: 0/019F9EA8, prev 0/019F9E80, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 2000
latestCompletedXid 1949 oldestRunningXid 1836; 48 xacts: 1990 1954
1978 1850 1944 1972 1940 1924 1906 1970 1985 1998 1966 1987 1975 1858
1914 1982 1958 1840 1920 1926 1992 1962 1
90490 910 1950 1874 1928 1974 1968 1946 1912 1918 1996 1922 1930
1964 1952 1994 1934 1980 1836 1984 1960 1956 1916 1908 1938
90491 rmgr: Heap2 len (rec/tot): 60/ 60, tx:
1999, lsn: 0/019FA058, prev 0/019F9EA8, desc: NEW_CID rel
1663/12678/2615; tid 11/59; cmin: 0, cmax: 4294967295, combo:
4294967295
90492 rmgr: Heap len (rec/tot): 127/ 127, tx:
1999, lsn: 0/019FA098, prev 0/019FA058, desc: INSERT off 59 flags
0x00, blkref #0: rel 1663/12678/2615 blk 11
I thought that the logical decoding doesn't create ReorderBufferTXN of
xid=1999 when processing NEW_CID since it decodes ASSIGNMENT of
xid=1999 beforehand. But what actually happen is that it skips NEW_CID
since the state of snapshot builder is SNAPBUILD_BUILDING_SNAPSHOT yet
and then the state becomes SNAPBUILD_FULL_SNAPSHOT when processing
RUNNING_XACTS , and therefore it creates two ReorderBufferTXN entries
for xid = 1999 and xid = 1998 as top-level transactions when
processing NEW_CID (ReorderBufferXidSetCatalogChanges creates xid=1999
and ReorderBufferAddNewTupleCids creates xid = 1998). And therefore it
got the assertion failure when adding ReorderBufferTXN of xid = 1998.
I'll look into this more deeply tomorrow.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-08 14:46:54 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
Previous Message | James Coleman | 2019-07-08 14:32:18 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |