On 20.03.2020 03:34, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:34 AM Anastasia Lubennikova
<a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
During tests, we catched an assertion failure in _bt_killitems() for
posting tuple in unique index:
/* kitem must have matching offnum when heap TIDs match */
Assert(kitem->indexOffset == offnum);
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtutils.c#L1809
I struggle to understand the meaning of this assertion.
Don't we allow the chance that posting tuple moved right on the page as
the comment says?
I think you're right. However, it still seems like we should check
that "kitem->indexOffset" is consistent among all of the BTScanPosItem
entries that we have for each TID that we believe to be from the same
posting list tuple.
What kind of consistency do you mean here?
We can probably change this assertion to
Assert(kitem->indexOffset <= offnum);
Anything else?
(Thinks some more...)
Even if the offnum changes when the buffer lock is released, due to
somebody inserting on to the same page, I guess that we still expect
to observe all of the heap TIDs together in the posting list. Though
maybe not. Maybe it's possible for a deduplication pass to occur when
the buffer lock is dropped, in which case we should arguably behave in
the same way when we see the same heap TIDs (i.e. delete the entire
posting list without regard for whether or not the TIDs happened to
appear in a posting list initially). I'm not sure, though.
It will make no difference most of the time, since the
kill_prior_tuple stuff is generally not applied when the page is
changed at all -- the LSN is checked by the logic added by commit
2ed5b87f. That's why I asked about unlogged indexes (we don't do the
LSN thing there). But I still think that we need to take a firm
position on it.
It was a logged index. Though the failed test setup includes logical
replication. Does it handle LSNs differently?
Finally, Alexander Lakhin managed to reproduce this on master. Test is
attached as a patch.
Speaking of unlogged indexes. Now the situation, where items moved left
on the page is legal even if LSN haven't changed.
Anyway, the cycle starts from the offset that we saved in a first pass:
OffsetNumber offnum = kitem->indexOffset;
while (offnum <= maxoff)
...
It still works correctly, but probably microvacuum becomes less
efficient, if items were concurrently deduplicated.
I wonder if this case worth optimizing?
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
diff --git a/src/test/subscription/t/000_rep_btree+.pl b/src/test/subscription/t/000_rep_btree+.pl
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..5a7149334c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/test/subscription/t/000_rep_btree+.pl
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+use strict;
+use warnings;
+use PostgresNode;
+use TestLib;
+use Test::More tests => 1;
+
+# Initialize publisher node
+my $node_publisher = get_new_node('publisher');
+$node_publisher->init(allows_streaming => 'logical');
+$node_publisher->append_conf('postgresql.conf', q{
+autovacuum = 'off'
+max_connections = 100
+});
+$node_publisher->start;
+
+# Create subscriber node
+my $node_subscriber = get_new_node('subscriber');
+$node_subscriber->init(allows_streaming => 'logical');
+$node_subscriber->append_conf('postgresql.conf', q{
+autovacuum = 'off'
+max_connections = 100
+});
+$node_subscriber->start;
+
+$node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "CREATE TABLE t (k int primary key, v int, c int);");
+$node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "CREATE TABLE t (k int primary key, v int, c int);");
+
+# Setup logical replication
+my $publisher_connstr = $node_publisher->connstr . ' dbname=postgres';
+$node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "CREATE PUBLICATION tap_pub");
+$node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "ALTER PUBLICATION tap_pub ADD TABLE t");
+
+$node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres',
+ "CREATE SUBSCRIPTION tap_sub CONNECTION '$publisher_connstr' PUBLICATION tap_pub"
+);
+
+$node_publisher->wait_for_catchup('tap_sub');
+
+# Also wait for initial table sync to finish
+my $synced_query = "SELECT count(1) = 0 FROM pg_subscription_rel WHERE srsubstate NOT IN ('r', 's');";
+$node_subscriber->poll_query_until('postgres', $synced_query)
+ or die "Timed out while waiting for subscriber to synchronize data";
+
+$node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "INSERT INTO t (select generate_series(0, 399), 0, 0);");
+
+open (PGB_SCRIPT, '>/tmp/writer.pgb');
+print PGB_SCRIPT << 'END';
+\set src random(0, 399)
+\set dst random(0, 399)
+\set amount random(1, 10)
+begin;
+update t set v = v - :amount, c = c + 1 where k=:src;
+update t set v = v + :amount, c = c + 1 where k=:dst;
+commit;
+END
+close(PGB_SCRIPT);
+
+my $time = localtime();
+diag("$time: pgbench starting...");
+my $pgbench1 = IPC::Run::start(
+ [ 'pgbench', '-n', '-c', 10, '-T', 60, '-f', '/tmp/writer.pgb', '-d', $node_publisher->connstr('postgres') ],
+ '<', \undef, '>&', '/tmp/pgbench1.log');
+
+my $pgbench2 = IPC::Run::start(
+ [ 'pgbench', '-n', '-c', 10, '-T', 60, '-f', '/tmp/writer.pgb', '-d', $node_subscriber->connstr('postgres') ],
+ '<', \undef, '>&', '/tmp/pgbench2.log');
+
+for my $i (1..60 + 2) {
+ my $result1 = $node_publisher->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT SUM(c) FROM t");
+ my $result2 = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres', "SELECT SUM(c) FROM t");
+ diag("changes: $result1 / $result2");
+ sleep(1);
+}
+$pgbench1->finish;
+$pgbench2->finish;
+
+$time = localtime();
+diag("$time: pgbench ended.");
+
+$node_subscriber->stop('fast');
+$node_publisher->stop('fast');
+ok(1);
+
