Horton

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, "Wood, Dan" <hexpert@amazon.com>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers@postgresql.org>, "Wong, Yi Wen" <yiwong@amazon.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-11-10T00:19:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I don't follow you here. Why would REINDEXing make the rows that
>> should be dead disappear again, even for a short period of time?
>
> It's not the REINDEX that makes them reappear.

Of course. I was just trying to make sense of what you said.

> It's the second
> vacuum. The reindex part was about $user trying to fix the problem...
> As you need two vacuums with appropriate cutoffs to hit the "rows
> revive" problem, that'll often in practice not happen immediately.

This explanation clears things up, though.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Backport addition of rs_old_rel to rewriteheap's state.

  2. Perform a lot more sanity checks when freezing tuples.

  3. Revert bogus fixes of HOT-freezing bug

  4. Fix traversal of half-frozen update chains

  5. Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple

  6. During index build, check and elog (not just Assert) for broken HOT chain.

  7. Fix WAL replay of locking an updated tuple

  8. Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.