Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File: "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 927, PID: 568639)

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think because the test case proposed needs all three changes, we can
> > > > > push the change-1 without a test case and then as a second patch have
> > > > > change-2 for HEAD and change-3 for back branches with the test case.
> > > > > Do you have any other ideas to proceed here?
> > > >
> > > > I found another test case that causes the assertion failure at
> > > > "Assert(!needs_snapshot || needs_timetravel);" on all branches. I've
> > > > attached the patch for the test case. In this test case, I modified a
> > > > user-catalog table instead of system-catalog table. That way, we don't
> > > > generate invalidation messages while generating NEW_CID records. As a
> > > > result, we mark only the subtransactions as containing catalog change
> > > > and don't make association between top-level and sub transactions. The
> > > > assertion failure happens on all supported branches. If we need to fix
> > > > this (I believe so), Change-2 needs to be backpatched to all supported
> > > > branches.
> > > >
> > > > There are three changes as Amit mentioned, and regarding the test
> > > > case, we have three test cases I've attached: truncate_testcase.patch,
> > > > analyze_testcase.patch, uesr_catalog_testcase.patch. The relationship
> > > > between assertion failures and test cases are very complex. I could
> > > > not find any test case to cause only one assertion failure on all
> > > > branches. One idea to proceed is:
> > > >
> > > > Patch-1 includes Change-1 and is applied to all branches.
> > > >
> > > > Patch-2 includes Change-2 and the user_catalog test case, and is
> > > > applied to all branches.
> > > >
> > > > Patch-3 includes Change-3 and the truncate test case (or the analyze
> > > > test case), and is applied to v14 and v15 (also till v11 if we
> > > > prefer).
> > > >
> > > > The patch-1 doesn't include any test case but the user_catalog test
> > > > case can test both Change-1 and Change-2 on all branches.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was wondering if it makes sense to commit both Change-1 and Change-2
> > > together as one patch? Both assertions are caused by a single test
> > > case and are related to the general problem that the association of
> > > top and sub transaction is only guaranteed to be formed before we
> > > decode transaction changes. Also, it would be good to fix the problem
> > > with a test case that can cause it. What do you think?
> >
> > Yeah, it makes sense to me.
> >
>
> I've attached two patches that need to be back-patched to all branches
> and includes Change-1, Change-2, and a test case for them. FYI this
> patch resolves the assertion failure reported in this thread as well
> as one reported in another thread[2]. So I borrowed some of the
> changes from the patch[2] Osumi-san recently proposed.
>

I've attached patches for Change-3 with a test case. Please review them as well.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com