Re: Recovering from detoast-related catcache invalidations

> Also, I'm pretty dubious that GetNonHistoricCatalogSnapshot rather
> than GetCatalogSnapshot is the right thing, because the catcaches
> use the latter.
Yes, you are right, should use GetCatalogSnapshot here.

> Maybe, but that undocumented hack in SetHintBits seems completely
> unacceptable. Isn't there a cleaner way to make this check?
Maybe we don't need to call 'HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility' to check if the
tuple has been deleted.
As the tuple's xmin must been committed, so we just need to check if its
xmax is committed,
like the below:

------------
@@ -1956,9 +1956,11 @@ CatalogCacheCreateEntry(CatCache *cache, HeapTuple
ntp, Datum *arguments,
*/
if (HeapTupleHasExternal(ntp))
{
+ TransactionId xmax;

dtp = toast_flatten_tuple(ntp, cache->cc_tupdesc);
- if (!HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility(ntp,
GetNonHistoricCatalogSnapshot(cache->cc_reloid), InvalidBuffer))
+ xmax = HeapTupleHeaderGetUpdateXid(ntp->t_data);
+ if (TransactionIdIsValid(xmax) &&
TransactionIdDidCommit(xmax))
{
heap_freetuple(dtp);
return NULL;
------------

I'm not quite sure the code is correct, I cannot clearly understand
'HeapTupleHeaderGetUpdateXid', and I need more time to dive into it.

Any thoughts?

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 于2024年1月12日周五 06:21写道：

> Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiaoran(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >>> The detection of "get an invalidation" could be refined: what I did
> >>> here is to check for any advance of SharedInvalidMessageCounter,
> >>> which clearly will have a significant number of false positives.
>
> > I have reviewed your patch, and it looks good. But instead of checking
> for
> > any advance of SharedInvalidMessageCounter ( if the invalidate message is
> > not related to the current tuple, it is a little expensive) I have
> another
> > idea: we can recheck the visibility of the tuple with
> CatalogSnapshot(the
> > CatalogSnapthot must be refreshed if there is any SharedInvalidMessages)
> if
> > it is not visible, we re-fetch the tuple, otherwise, we can continue to
> use
> > it as it is not outdated.
>
> Maybe, but that undocumented hack in SetHintBits seems completely
> unacceptable. Isn't there a cleaner way to make this check?
>
> Also, I'm pretty dubious that GetNonHistoricCatalogSnapshot rather
> than GetCatalogSnapshot is the right thing, because the catcaches
> use the latter.
>
> regards, tom lane
>