From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Петър Славов <pet(dot)slavov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Date: | 2022-05-31 19:45:09 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmBPQPfz4LZ1f=E8wL0O935WVZGZj_jb-rVsE=W1faXBQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:19 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I don't think that assertion is correct.
>
> Consider transactions aborting concurrently with heap pruning. You could have
> done a HTSV for one chain element, a concurrent abort happened, then you did
> the HTSV for another chain element. If the HTSVs were not in the order of the
> HOT chain you could see HEAPTUPLE_DEAD for an earlier chain element, while
> seeing HEAPTUPLE_INSERT_IN_PROGRESS in a later one. There's several other
> scenarios with subtransaction aborts as well, I think.
I think that it probably was correct before I rebased the patch on top
of your bugfix commit 18b87b201f. The original version would have
actually called HTSV directly, at the point that it accessed each
tuple from a HOT chain. If nothing else this suggests that the patch
should be clear on this point about not calling HTSV in HOT chain
order.
Offhand I think that it probably would still work if it was limited to
HEAPTUPLE_LIVE (no more asserting in the HEAPTUPLE_INSERT_IN_PROGRESS
case). Not sure if that's worth it. A topic for another time.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-05-31 19:46:38 | Re: BUG #17485: Records missing from Primary Key index when doing REINDEX INDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-05-31 19:44:38 | Re: PostgreSQL 14.3 plpython not compatible with Python 3.11 |