mirror of
https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git
synced 2025-09-03 15:22:11 +03:00
Fix index deletion latestRemovedXid bug.
The logic for determining the latest removed XID for the purposes of generating recovery conflicts in REDO routines was subtly broken. It failed to follow links from HOT chains, and so failed to consider all relevant heap tuple headers in some cases. To fix, expand the loop that deals with LP_REDIRECT line pointers to also deal with HOT chains. The new version of the loop is loosely based on a similar loop from heap_prune_chain(). The impact of this bug is probably quite limited, since the horizon code necessarily deals with heap tuples that are pointed to by LP_DEAD-set index tuples. The process of setting LP_DEAD index tuples (e.g. within the kill_prior_tuple mechanism) is highly correlated with opportunistic pruning of pointed-to heap tuples. Plus the question of generating a recovery conflict usually comes up some time after index tuple LP_DEAD bits were initially set, unlike heap pruning, where a latestRemovedXid is generated at the point of the pruning operation (heap pruning has no deferred "would-be page split" style processing that produces conflicts lazily). Only backpatch to Postgres 12, the first version where this logic runs during original execution (following commit558a9165e0
). The index latestRemovedXid mechanism has had the same bug since it first appeared over 10 years ago (in commita760893d
), but backpatching to all supported versions now seems like a bad idea on balance. Running the new improved code during recovery seems risky, especially given the lack of complaints from the field. Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=Eib393+HHcERK_9MtgNS7Ew1HY=RDC_g6GL46zM5C6Q@mail.gmail.com Backpatch: 12-
This commit is contained in:
@@ -305,13 +305,15 @@ ResolveRecoveryConflictWithSnapshot(TransactionId latestRemovedXid, RelFileNode
|
||||
VirtualTransactionId *backends;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* If we get passed InvalidTransactionId then we are a little surprised,
|
||||
* but it is theoretically possible in normal running. It also happens
|
||||
* when replaying already applied WAL records after a standby crash or
|
||||
* restart, or when replaying an XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE record that marks as
|
||||
* frozen a page which was already all-visible. If latestRemovedXid is
|
||||
* invalid then there is no conflict. That rule applies across all record
|
||||
* types that suffer from this conflict.
|
||||
* If we get passed InvalidTransactionId then we do nothing (no conflict).
|
||||
*
|
||||
* This can happen when replaying already-applied WAL records after a
|
||||
* standby crash or restart, or when replaying an XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE
|
||||
* record that marks as frozen a page which was already all-visible. It's
|
||||
* also quite common with records generated during index deletion
|
||||
* (original execution of the deletion can reason that a recovery conflict
|
||||
* which is sufficient for the deletion operation must take place before
|
||||
* replay of the deletion record itself).
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (!TransactionIdIsValid(latestRemovedXid))
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user