Re: Recovering from detoast-related catcache invalidations
Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiaoran@gmail.com>
From: Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiaoran@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Date: 2024-01-11T17:52:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix catcache invalidation of a list entry that's being built
- f217c410553d 13.19 landed
- 91fc447c21d3 16.7 landed
- 96e61b2792a5 17.3 landed
- fce17c3a53d6 14.16 landed
- ce7c406f0f8d 15.11 landed
- af8cd1639ab2 18.0 landed
-
Cope with inplace update making catcache stale during TOAST fetch.
- 7a21306aee0a 13.16 landed
- 11f3815d6af8 12.20 landed
- af73e37fa181 14.13 landed
- b08a4b6163eb 15.8 landed
- e4afd7153bd8 16.4 landed
- f9f47f0d93d1 17.0 landed
-
Add previous commit to .git-blame-ignore-revs.
- 36578fa04942 17.0 landed
-
Re-pgindent catcache.c after previous commit.
- d41358f4bbc8 15.6 landed
- d29a4fbacfb7 12.18 landed
- 96c019ffa3f8 17.0 landed
- 7ceeb57baddd 14.11 landed
- 56dcd71decb7 16.2 landed
- 475b3ea3c06b 13.14 landed
-
Cope with catcache entries becoming stale during detoasting.
- db122d426a2d 14.11 landed
- ad98fb14226a 17.0 landed
- 98e03f957436 13.14 landed
- 7e2561e1a258 16.2 landed
- 3b4d85cf159c 12.18 landed
- 2a46a0df4793 15.6 landed
Attachments
- 0001-Recheck-the-tuple-visibility.patch (application/octet-stream) patch 0001
Hi, >> BTW, while nosing around I found what seems like a very nasty related >> bug. Suppose that a catalog tuple being loaded into syscache contains >> some toasted fields. CatalogCacheCreateEntry will flatten the tuple, >> involving fetches from toast tables that will certainly cause >> AcceptInvalidationMessages calls. What if one of those should have >> invalidated this tuple? We will not notice, because it's not in >> the hashtable yet. When we do add it, we will mark it not-dead, >> meaning that the stale entry looks fine and could persist for a long >> while. I spent some time trying to understand the bug and finally, I can reproduce it locally with the following steps: step1: create a function called 'test' with a long body that must be stored in a toast table. and put it in schema 'yy' by : "alter function test set schema yy"; step 2: I added a breakpoint at 'toast_flatten_tuple' for session1 , then execute the following SQL: ---------- set search_path='public'; alter function test set schema xx; ---------- step 3: when the session1 stops at the breakpoint, I open session2 and execute ----------- set search_path = 'yy'; alter function test set schema public; ----------- step4: resume the session1 , it reports the error "ERROR: could not find a function named "test"" step 5: continue to execute "alter function test set schema xx;" in session1, but it still can not work and report the above error although the function test already belongs to schema 'public' Obviously, in session 1, the "test" proc tuple in the cache is outdated. >> 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. >> However, the only way I see to make that a lot better is to >> temporarily create a placeholder catcache entry (probably a negative >> one) with the same keys, and then see if it got marked dead. >> This seems a little expensive, plus I'm afraid that it'd be actively >> wrong in the recursive-lookup cases that the existing comment in >> SearchCatCacheMiss is talking about (that is, the catcache entry >> might mislead any recursive lookup that happens). 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. I added a commit based on your patch and attached it.