Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
> On Mar 16, 2021, at 11:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I'm circling back around to the idea that amcheck is trying to >> validate TOAST references that are already dead, and it's getting >> burnt because something-or-other has already removed the toast >> rows, though not the referencing datums. That's legal behavior >> once the rows are marked dead. Upthread it was claimed that >> amcheck isn't doing that, but this looks like a smoking gun to me. > > I think this theory has some legs. From check_tuple_header_and_visibilty(): > > else if (!(infomask & HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED)) > return true; /* > HEAPTUPLE_DELETE_IN_PROGRESS or > * > HEAPTUPLE_LIVE */ > else > return false; /* > HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD or HEAPTUPLE_DEAD */ > } > return true; /* not dead */ > } > > That first case looks wrong to me. Don't we need to call > get_xid_status() here, Mark? As coded, it seems that if the xmin is ok > and the xmax is marked committed, we consider the tuple checkable. The > comment says it must be HEAPTUPLE_DELETE_IN_PROGRESS or > HEAPTUPLE_LIVE, but it seems to me that if the actual answer is either > HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD or HEAPTUPLE_DEAD depending on whether the > xmax is all-visible. And in the second case the comment says it's > either HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD or HEAPTUPLE_DEAD, but I think in that > case it's either HEAPTUPLE_DELETE_IN_PROGRESS or > HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD or HEAPTUPLE_DEAD, depending on the XID > status. > > Another thought here is that it's probably not wicked smart to be > relying on the hint bits to match the actual status of the tuple in > cases of corruption. Maybe we should be warning about tuples that are > have xmin or xmax flagged as committed or invalid when in fact clog > disagrees. That's not a particularly uncommon case, and it's hard to > check. This code was not committed as part of the recent pg_amcheck work, but longer ago, and I'm having trouble reconstructing exactly why it was written that way. Changing check_tuple_header_and_visibilty() fixes the regression test and also manual tests against the "regression" database that I've been using. I'd like to ponder the changes a while longer before I post, but the fact that these changes fix the tests seems to add credibility to this theory. — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
amcheck: Improve some confusing reports about TOAST problems.
- 50529e5b4e39 14.0 landed
-
amcheck: Reword some messages and fix an alignment problem.
- 9acaf1a62197 14.0 landed
-
amcheck: fix multiple problems with TOAST pointer validation
- ec7ffb8096e8 14.0 landed
-
amcheck: Remove duplicate XID/MXID bounds checks.
- 4573f6a9af6e 14.0 landed
-
amcheck: Fix verify_heapam's tuple visibility checking rules.
- 3b6c1259f9ca 14.0 landed
-
nbtree VACUUM: Cope with buggy opclasses.
- 5b861baa550a 14.0 landed
-
Improve pg_amcheck's TAP test 003_check.pl.
- 87d90ac61fa1 14.0 landed
-
Fix a confusing amcheck corruption message.
- 4078ce65a0f7 14.0 landed
-
Doc: add note about how to run the pg_amcheck regression tests.
- 58f57490facd 14.0 cited
-
In pg_amcheck tests, don't depend on perl's Q/q pack code.
- 945d2cb7d025 14.0 landed
-
pg_amcheck: Keep trying to fix the tests.
- 9e294d0f34d6 14.0 landed
-
pg_amcheck: Try to fix still more test failures.
- 24189277f6ff 14.0 landed
-
Try to avoid apparent platform-dependency in IPC::Run
- f371a4cdba6d 14.0 landed
-
Fix portability issues in pg_amcheck's 004_verify_heapam.pl.
- 661125612706 14.0 landed
-
Try to fix compiler warnings.
- d60e61de4fb4 14.0 landed
-
Add pg_amcheck, a CLI for contrib/amcheck.
- 9706092839db 14.0 landed
-
Refactor and generalize the ParallelSlot machinery.
- f71519e545a3 14.0 landed
-
Remove old-style VACUUM FULL (which was known for a little while as
- 0a469c87692d 9.0.0 cited