For years, our makefiles have correctly observed that "there is no correct
way to write a rule that generates two files". However, what we did is to
provide empty rules that "generate" the secondary output files from the
primary one, and that's not right either. Depending on the details of
the creating process, the primary file might end up timestamped later than
one or more secondary files, causing subsequent make runs to consider the
secondary file(s) out of date. That's harmless in a plain build, since
make will just re-execute the empty rule and nothing happens. But it's
fatal in a VPATH build, since make will expect the secondary file to be
rebuilt in the build directory. This would manifest as "file not found"
failures during VPATH builds from tarballs, if we were ever unlucky enough
to ship a tarball with apparently out-of-date secondary files. (It's not
clear whether that has ever actually happened, but it definitely could.)
To ensure that secondary output files have timestamps >= their primary's,
change our makefile convention to be that we provide a "touch $@" action
not an empty rule. Also, make sure that this rule actually gets invoked
during a distprep run, else the hazard remains.
It's been like this a long time, so back-patch to all supported branches.
In HEAD, I skipped the changes in src/backend/catalog/Makefile, because
those rules are due to get replaced soon in the bootstrap data format
patch, and there seems no need to create a merge issue for that patch.
If for some reason we fail to land that patch in v11, we'll need to
back-fill the changes in that one makefile from v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18556.1521668179@sss.pgh.pa.us
specscanner.l had a fixed limit of 1024 bytes on the length of
individual SQL stanzas in an isolation test script. People are
starting to run into that, so fix it by making the buffer resizable.
Once we allow this in HEAD, it seems inevitable that somebody will
try to back-patch a test that exceeds the old limit, so back-patch
this change as a preventive measure.
Daniel Gustafsson
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8D628BE4-6606-4FF6-A3FF-8B2B0E9B43D0@yesql.se
An updating query that reads a CTE within an InitPlan or SubPlan could get
incorrect results if it updates rows that are concurrently being modified.
This is caused by CteScanNext supposing that nothing inside its recursive
ExecProcNode call could change which read pointer is selected in the CTE's
shared tuplestore. While that's normally true because of scoping
considerations, it can break down if an EPQ plan tree gets built during the
call, because EvalPlanQualStart builds execution trees for all subplans
whether they're going to be used during the recheck or not. And it seems
like a pretty shaky assumption anyway, so let's just reselect our own read
pointer here.
Per bug #14870 from Andrei Gorita. This has been broken since CTEs were
implemented, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171024155358.1471.82377@wrigleys.postgresql.org
If a query against an inheritance tree runs concurrently with an ALTER
TABLE that's disinheriting one of the tree members, it's possible to get
a "could not find inherited attribute" error because after obtaining lock
on the removed member, make_inh_translation_list sees that its columns
have attinhcount=0 and decides they aren't the columns it's looking for.
An ideal fix, perhaps, would avoid including such a just-removed member
table in the query at all; but there seems no way to accomplish that
without adding expensive catalog rechecks or creating a likelihood of
deadlocks. Instead, let's just drop the check on attinhcount. In this
way, a query that's included a just-disinherited child will still
succeed, which is not a completely unreasonable behavior.
This problem has existed for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. Also add an isolation test verifying related behaviors.
Patch by me; the new isolation test is based on Kyotaro Horiguchi's work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170626.174612.23936762.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
This reverts commit 2268e6afd596. It turned out that inconsistency in
the report is still possible, so go back to the simpler formulation of
the test and instead add an alternate expected output.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180103193728.ysqpcp2xjnqpiep7@alvherre.pgsql
Multiple sessions doing CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY simultaneously are
supposed to be able to work in parallel, as evidenced by fixes in commit
c3d09b3bd23f specifically to support this case. In reality, one of the
sessions would be aborted by a misterious "deadlock detected" error.
Jeff Janes diagnosed that this is because of leftover snapshots used for
system catalog scans -- this was broken by 8aa3e47510b9 keeping track of
(registering) the catalog snapshot. To fix the deadlocks, it's enough
to de-register that snapshot prior to waiting.
Backpatch to 9.4, which introduced MVCC catalog scans.
Include an isolationtester spec that 8 out of 10 times reproduces the
deadlock with the unpatched code for me (Álvaro).
Author: Jeff Janes
Diagnosed-by: Jeff Janes
Reported-by: Jeremy Finzel
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMa1XUhHjCv8Qkx0WOr1Mpm_R4qxN26EibwCrj0Oor2YBUFUTg%40mail.gmail.com
Previously it was possible that a tuple was not pruned during vacuum,
even though its update xmax (i.e. the updating xid in a multixact with
both key share lockers and an updater) was below the cutoff horizon.
As the freezing code assumed, rightly so, that that's not supposed to
happen, xmax would be preserved (as a member of a new multixact or
xmax directly). That causes two problems: For one the tuple is below
the xmin horizon, which can cause problems if the clog is truncated or
once there's an xid wraparound. The bigger problem is that that will
break HOT chains, which in turn can lead two to breakages: First,
failing index lookups, which in turn can e.g lead to constraints being
violated. Second, future hot prunes / vacuums can end up making
invisible tuples visible again. There's other harmful scenarios.
Fix the problem by recognizing that tuples can be DEAD instead of
RECENTLY_DEAD, even if the multixactid has alive members, if the
update_xid is below the xmin horizon. That's safe because newer
versions of the tuple will contain the locking xids.
A followup commit will harden the code somewhat against future similar
bugs and already corrupted data.
Author: Andres Freund, with changes by Alvaro Herrera
Reported-By: Daniel Wood
Analyzed-By: Andres Freund, Alvaro Herrera, Robert Haas, Peter
Geoghegan, Daniel Wood, Yi Wen Wong, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-By: Alvaro Herrera, Robert Haas, Michael Paquier
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/E5711E62-8FDF-4DCA-A888-C200BF6B5742@amazon.comhttps://postgr.es/m/20171102112019.33wb7g5wp4zpjelu@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 9.3-
It turns out we misdiagnosed what the real problem was. Revert the
previous changes, because they may have worse consequences going
forward. A better fix is forthcoming.
The simplistic test case is kept, though disabled.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171102112019.33wb7g5wp4zpjelu@alap3.anarazel.de
Vacuum calls page-level HOT prune to remove dead HOT tuples before doing
liveness checks (HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum) on the remaining tuples. But
concurrent transaction commit/abort may turn DEAD some of the HOT tuples
that survived the prune, before HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum tests them.
This happens to activate the code that decides to freeze the tuple ...
which resuscitates it, duplicating data.
(This is especially bad if there's any unique constraints, because those
are now internally violated due to the duplicate entries, though you
won't know until you try to REINDEX or dump/restore the table.)
One possible fix would be to simply skip doing anything to the tuple,
and hope that the next HOT prune would remove it. But there is a
problem: if the tuple is older than freeze horizon, this would leave an
unfrozen XID behind, and if no HOT prune happens to clean it up before
the containing pg_clog segment is truncated away, it'd later cause an
error when the XID is looked up.
Fix the problem by having the tuple freezing routines cope with the
situation: don't freeze the tuple (and keep it dead). In the cases that
the XID is older than the freeze age, set the HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED flag
so that there is no need to look up the XID in pg_clog later on.
An isolation test is included, authored by Michael Paquier, loosely
based on Daniel Wood's original reproducer. It only tests one
particular scenario, though, not all the possible ways for this problem
to surface; it be good to have a more reliable way to test this more
fully, but it'd require more work.
In message https://postgr.es/m/20170911140103.5akxptyrwgpc25bw@alvherre.pgsql
I outlined another test case (more closely matching Dan Wood's) that
exposed a few more ways for the problem to occur.
Backpatch all the way back to 9.3, where this problem was introduced by
multixact juggling. In branches 9.3 and 9.4, this includes a backpatch
of commit e5ff9fefcd50 (of 9.5 era), since the original is not
correctable without matching the coding pattern in 9.5 up.
Reported-by: Daniel Wood
Diagnosed-by: Daniel Wood
Reviewed-by: Yi Wen Wong, Michaël Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E5711E62-8FDF-4DCA-A888-C200BF6B5742@amazon.com
Concurrent auto-analyze could be holding a snapshot, affecting the
removal of deleted row versions. Remove the deletion to avoid this
happening. Per buildfarm.
In passing, make the test independent of assumptions of physical row
order, just out of sheer paranoia.
presence of page pins, which leads to serious estimation errors in the
planner. This particularly affects small heavily-accessed tables,
especially where locking (e.g. from FK constraints) forces frequent
vacuums for mxid cleanup.
Fix by keeping separate track of pages whose live tuples were actually
counted vs. pages that were only scanned for freezing purposes. Thus,
reltuples can only be set to 0 if all pages of the relation were
actually counted.
Backpatch to all supported versions.
Per bug #14057 from Nicolas Baccelli, analyzed by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160331103739.8956.94469@wrigleys.postgresql.org
A transaction that conflicts against itself, for example
INSERT INTO t(pk) VALUES (1),(1) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
should behave the same regardless of isolation level. It certainly
shouldn't throw a serialization error, as retrying will not help.
We got this wrong due to the ON CONFLICT logic not considering the case,
as reported by Jason Dusek.
Core of this patch is by Peter Geoghegan (based on an earlier patch by
Thomas Munro), though I didn't take his proposed code refactoring for fear
that it might have unexpected side-effects. Test cases by Thomas Munro
and myself.
Report: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Related-Discussion: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
ExecInitCteScan supposed that it didn't have to do anything to the extra
tuplestore read pointer it gets from tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer.
However, it needs this read pointer to be positioned at the start of the
tuplestore, while tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer is actually defined as
cloning the current position of read pointer 0. In normal situations
that accidentally works because we initialize the whole plan tree at once,
before anything gets read. But it fails in an EvalPlanQual recheck, as
illustrated in bug #14328 from Dima Pavlov. To fix, just forcibly rewind
the pointer after tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer. The cost of doing so is
negligible unless the tuplestore is already in TSS_READFILE state, which
wouldn't happen in normal cases. We could consider altering tuplestore's
API to make that case cheaper, but that would make for a more invasive
back-patch and it doesn't seem worth it.
This has been broken probably for as long as we've had CTEs, so back-patch
to all supported branches.
Discussion: <32468.1474548308@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On some buildfarm animals the isolationtest added in 07ef0351 failed, as
the order in which processes are run after unlocking is not
guaranteed. Add an alternative output for that.
Discussion: <7969.1471484738@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Backpatch: 9.6, like the test in the aforementioned commit
INSERT .. ON CONFLICT runs a pre-check of the possible conflicting
constraints before performing the actual speculative insertion. In case
the inserted tuple included TOASTed columns the ON CONFLICT condition
would be handled correctly in case the conflict was caught by the
pre-check, but if two transactions entered the speculative insertion
phase at the same time, one would have to re-try, and the code for
aborting a speculative insertion did not handle deleting the
speculatively inserted TOAST datums correctly.
TOAST deletion would fail with "ERROR: attempted to delete invisible
tuple" as we attempted to remove the TOAST tuples using
simple_heap_delete which reasoned that the given tuples should not be
visible to the command that wrote them.
This commit updates the heap_abort_speculative() function which aborts
the conflicting tuple to use itself, via toast_delete, for deleting
associated TOAST datums. Like before, the inserted toast rows are not
marked as being speculative.
This commit also adds a isolationtester spec test, exercising the
relevant code path. Unfortunately 9.5 cannot handle two waiting
sessions, and thus cannot execute this test.
Reported-By: Viren Negi, Oskari Saarenmaa
Author: Oskari Saarenmaa, edited a bit by me
Bug: #14150
Discussion: <20160519123338.12513.20271@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
To ensure that "make installcheck" can be used safely against an existing
installation, we need to be careful about what global object names
(database, role, and tablespace names) we use; otherwise we might
accidentally clobber important objects. There's been a weak consensus that
test databases should have names including "regression", and that test role
names should start with "regress_", but we didn't have any particular rule
about tablespace names; and neither of the other rules was followed with
any consistency either.
This commit moves us a long way towards having a hard-and-fast rule that
regression test databases must have names including "regression", and that
test role and tablespace names must start with "regress_". It's not
completely there because I did not touch some test cases in rolenames.sql
that test creation of special role names like "session_user". That will
require some rethinking of exactly what we want to test, whereas the intent
of this patch is just to hit all the cases in which the needed renamings
are cosmetic.
There is no enforcement mechanism in this patch either, but if we don't
add one we can expect that the tests will soon be violating the convention
again. Again, that's not such a cosmetic change and it will require
discussion. (But I did use a quick-hack enforcement patch to find these
cases.)
Discussion: <16638.1468620817@sss.pgh.pa.us>
When key-share locking a tuple that has been not-key-updated, and the
update is a committed transaction, in some cases we raised
serializability errors:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update
Because the key-share doesn't conflict with the update, the error is
unnecessary and inconsistent with the case that the update hasn't
committed yet. This causes problems for some usage patterns, even if it
can be claimed that it's sufficient to retry the aborted transaction:
given a steady stream of updating transactions and a long locking
transaction, the long transaction can be starved indefinitely despite
multiple retries.
To fix, we recognize that HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate can return
HeapTupleUpdated when an updating transaction has committed, and that we
need to deal with that case exactly as if it were a non-committed
update: verify whether the two operations conflict, and if not, carry on
normally. If they do conflict, however, there is a difference: in the
HeapTupleBeingUpdated case we can just sleep until the concurrent
transaction is gone, while in the HeapTupleUpdated case this is not
possible and we must raise an error instead.
Per trouble report from Olivier Dony.
In addition to a couple of test cases that verify the changed behavior,
I added a test case to verify the behavior that remains unchanged,
namely that errors are raised when a update that modifies the key is
used. That must still generate serializability errors. One
pre-existing test case changes behavior; per discussion, the new
behavior is actually the desired one.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560AA479.4080807@odoo.comhttps://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151014164844.3019.25750@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch to 9.3, where the problem appeared.
The previous coding here was formally undefined, though it seems to
accidentally work on most platforms in the buildfarm. Caught by some
OpenBSD platforms in which libc contains an assertion check for
overlapping areas passed to memcpy().
Thomas Munro
While prior to this patch the user-visible effect on the database
of any set of successfully committed serializable transactions was
always consistent with some one-at-a-time order of execution of
those transactions, the presence of declarative constraints could
allow errors to occur which were not possible in any such ordering,
and developers had no good workarounds to prevent user-facing
errors where they were not necessary or desired. This patch adds
a check for serialization failure ahead of duplicate key checking
so that if a developer explicitly (redundantly) checks for the
pre-existing value they will get the desired serialization failure
where the problem is caused by a concurrent serializable
transaction; otherwise they will get a duplicate key error.
While it would be better if the reads performed by the constraints
could count as part of the work of the transaction for
serialization failure checking, and we will hopefully get there
some day, this patch allows a clean and reliable way for developers
to work around the issue. In many cases existing code will already
be doing the right thing for this to "just work".
Author: Thomas Munro, with minor editing of docs by me
Reviewed-by: Marko Tiikkaja, Kevin Grittner
In commit afb9249d06f47d7a, we (probably I) made ExecLockRows assign
null test tuples to all relations of the query while setting up to do an
EvalPlanQual recheck for a newly-updated locked row. This was sheerest
brain fade: we should only set test tuples for relations that are lockable
by the LockRows node, and in particular empty test tuples are only sensible
for inheritance child relations that weren't the source of the current
tuple from their inheritance tree. Setting a null test tuple for an
unrelated table causes it to return NULLs when it should not, as exhibited
in bug #14034 from Bronislav Houdek. To add insult to injury, doing it the
wrong way required two loops where one would suffice; so the corrected code
is even a bit shorter and faster.
Add a regression test case based on his example, and back-patch to 9.5
where the bug was introduced.
I noticed that the async-notify test results in log messages like these:
LOG: could not send data to client: Broken pipe
FATAL: connection to client lost
This is because it unceremoniously disconnects a client session that is
about to have some NOTIFY messages delivered to it. Such log messages
during a regression test might well cause people to go looking for a
problem that doesn't really exist (it did cause me to waste some time that
way). We can shut it up by adding an UNLISTEN command to session teardown.
Patch HEAD only; this doesn't seem significant enough to back-patch.
The original coding of the test was relying too much on the ordering in
which backends are awakened once an advisory lock which they wait for is
released. Change the code so that each backend uses its own advisory
lock instead, so that the output becomes stable. Also add a few seconds
of sleep between lock releases, so that the test isn't broken in
overloaded buildfarm animals, as suggested by Tom Lane.
Per buildfarm members spoonbill and guaibasaurus.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19294.1456551587%40sss.pgh.pa.us
In 0e5680f4737a, I fixed a bug in heapam that caused spurious deadlocks
when multiple updates concurrently attempted to modify the old version
of an updated tuple whose new version was key-share locked. I proposed
an isolationtester spec file that reproduced the bug, but back then
isolationtester wasn't mature enough to be able to run it. Now that
38f8bdcac498 is in the tree, we can have this spec file too.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141212205254.GC1768%40alvh.no-ip.org
This patch introduces "pg_blocking_pids(int) returns int[]", which returns
the PIDs of any sessions that are blocking the session with the given PID.
Historically people have obtained such information using a self-join on
the pg_locks view, but it's unreasonably tedious to do it that way with any
modicum of correctness, and the addition of parallel queries has pretty
much broken that approach altogether. (Given some more columns in the view
than there are today, you could imagine handling parallel-query cases with
a 4-way join; but ugh.)
The new function has the following behaviors that are painful or impossible
to get right via pg_locks:
1. Correctly understands which lock modes block which other ones.
2. In soft-block situations (two processes both waiting for conflicting lock
modes), only the one that's in front in the wait queue is reported to
block the other.
3. In parallel-query cases, reports all sessions blocking any member of
the given PID's lock group, and reports a session by naming its leader
process's PID, which will be the pg_backend_pid() value visible to
clients.
The motivation for doing this right now is mostly to fix the isolation
tests. Commit 38f8bdcac4982215beb9f65a19debecaf22fd470 lobotomized
isolationtester's is-it-waiting query by removing its ability to recognize
nonconflicting lock modes, as a crude workaround for the inability to
handle soft-block situations properly. But even without the lock mode
tests, the old query was excessively slow, particularly in
CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS builds; some of our buildfarm animals fail the new
deadlock-hard test because the deadlock timeout elapses before they can
probe the waiting status of all eight sessions. Replacing the pg_locks
self-join with use of pg_blocking_pids() is not only much more correct, but
a lot faster: I measure it at about 9X faster in a typical dev build with
Asserts, and 3X faster in CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS builds. That should provide
enough headroom for the slower CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS animals to pass the
test, without having to lengthen deadlock_timeout yet more and thus slow
down the test for everyone else.
The previous value of 5s is inadequate for the buildfarm's
CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS animals: they take long enough to do the is-it-waiting
queries that the timeout expires, allowing the database state to change,
before isolationtester is done looking. Perhaps 10s will be enough.
(If it isn't, I'm inclined to reduce the number of sessions involved.)
This mostly reverts commit 9c9782f066e0ce5424b8706df2cce147cb78170f.
I left in the parts that rearranged removal of completed waiting steps;
but the idea of not rechecking a step's blocked-ness isn't working.
This reverts commit d03130d378b5fb071d231a7822784ad87268583a.
That was dependent on an isolationtester.c change that now proves
to be broken; we will need to find another solution.
It turns out that there is a second race condition in the new deadlock-hard
test: once the deadlock detector fires, it's uncertain whether step s7a8 or
step s8a1 will report first, because killing s8's transaction unblocks s7.
So far, s7 has only been seen to report first in CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
builds, but it's pretty reproducible there, and in theory it should
sometimes occur in normal builds too. If s7 were a bit slower than usual,
that could also break the test, since the existing expected-file assumes
that we'll see s7a8 report the first time we check it after s8a1 completes.
To fix, add a post-lock delay to s7a8.
If we're retrying a step, then we already decided it was blocked on a lock,
and there's no need to recheck that. The original coding of commit
38f8bdcac4982215beb9f65a19debecaf22fd470 resulted in a large number of
is-it-waiting queries when dealing with multiple concurrently-blocked
sessions, which is fairly pointless and also results in test failures in
CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS builds, where the is-it-waiting query is quite slow.
This definition also permits appending pg_sleep() calls to steps where it's
needed to control the order of finish of concurrent steps. Before, that
did not work nicely because we'd decide that a step performing a sleep was
not blocked and hang up waiting for it to finish, rather than noticing the
completion of the concurrent step we're supposed to notice first.
In passing, revise handling of removal of completed waiting steps
to make it a bit less messy.
The new deadlock-soft-2 test has a timing dependency too: it supposes
that isolationtester will detect step s1b as waiting before the deadlock
detector runs and grants it the lock. Adjust deadlock_timeout to ensure
that that's true even in CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS builds, where the wait
detection query is quite slow. Per buildfarm member jaguarundi.
The original formulation of 4c9864b9b4d87d02f07f40bb27976da737afdcab
was extremely timing-sensitive, because it arranged for the deadlock
detector to be running (and possibly unblocking the current query)
at almost exactly the same time as isolationtester would be probing
to see if the query is blocked. The committed expected-file assumed
that the deadlock detection would finish first, but we see the opposite
on both fast and slow buildfarm animals. Adjust the deadlock timeout
settings to make it predictable that isolationtester *will* see the
query as waiting before deadlock detection unblocks it.
I used a 5s timeout for the same reasons mentioned in
a7921f71a3c747141344d8604f6a6d7b4cddb2a9.
Fix a few oversights in 38f8bdcac4982215beb9f65a19debecaf22fd470:
don't leak memory in run_permutation(), remember when we've issued
a cancel rather than issuing another one every 10ms,
fix some typos in comments.
This allows testing of deadlock scenarios. Scenarios that would
previously have been considered invalid are now simply taken as a
scenario in which more than one backend will wait.
This is a necessary prerequisite for forthcoming changes to allow deadlock
scenarios to be tested by the isolation tester. It is also a good idea on
general principle, since these scenarios add no useful test coverage not
provided by other scenarios, but do to take time to execute.
Commit 2834855cb added a not-very-carefully-thought-out isolation test
to check a BRIN index bug fix. The test depended on the availability
of the pageinspect contrib module, which meant it did not work in
several common testing scenarios such as "make check-world". It's not
clear whether we want a core test depending on a contrib module like
that, but in any case, failing to deal with the possibility that the
module isn't present in the installation-under-test is not acceptable.
Remove that test pending some better solution.
For correctness of summarization results, it is critical that the
snapshot used during the summarization scan is able to see all tuples
that are live to all transactions -- including tuples inserted or
deleted by in-progress transactions. Otherwise, it would be possible
for a transaction to insert a tuple, then idle for a long time while a
concurrent transaction executes summarization of the range: this would
result in the inserted value not being considered in the summary.
Previously we were trying to use a MVCC snapshot in conjunction with
adding a "placeholder" tuple in the index: the snapshot would see all
committed tuples, and the placeholder tuple would catch insertions by
any new inserters. The hole is that prior insertions by transactions
that are still in progress by the time the MVCC snapshot was taken were
ignored.
Kevin Grittner reported this as a bogus error message during vacuum with
default transaction isolation mode set to repeatable read (because the
error report mentioned a function name not being invoked during), but
the problem is larger than that.
To fix, tweak IndexBuildHeapRangeScan to have a new mode that behaves
the way we need using SnapshotAny visibility rules. This change
simplifies the BRIN code a bit, mainly by removing large comments that
were mistaken. Instead, rely on the SnapshotAny semantics to provide
what it needs. (The business about a placeholder tuple needs to remain:
that covers the case that a transaction inserts a a tuple in a page that
summarization already scanned.)
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731175700.GX2441@postgresql.org
In passing, remove a couple of unused declarations from brin.h and
reword a comment to be proper English. This part submitted by Kevin
Grittner.
Backpatch to 9.5, where BRIN was introduced.
A Salesforce colleague of mine griped that the regression tests don't
exercise EvalPlanQualFetchRowMarks() and allied routines. Which is
a fair complaint. Add test cases that go through the REFERENCE and COPY
code paths. Unfortunately we don't have sufficient infrastructure right
now to exercise the FDW code path in the isolation tests, but this is
surely better than before.
This tells you what fraction of NOTIFY's queue is currently filled.
Brendan Jurd, reviewed by Merlin Moncure and Gurjeet Singh. A few
further tweaks by me.
