On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10 March 2016 at 20:36, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> > On 3 February 2016 at 23:12, Thomas Munro >> > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> It quacks suspiciously like a bug. >> > >> > >> > Agreed >> > >> > What's more important is that is very publicly a bug in the eyes of >> > others >> > and should be fixed and backpatched soon. >> > >> > We have a maintenance release coming in a couple of weeks and I'd like >> > to >> > see this in there. >> >> As I understand it, the approach I've taken here can't be backpatched >> because it changes the aminsert_function interface (it needs the >> current snapshot when inserting), so I was proposing this as an >> improvement for 9.6. I guess there are other way to get the right >> snapshot into btinsert (and thence _bt_check_unique), but I didn't >> think it would be very classy to introduce a 'current snapshot' global >> variable to smuggle it in. > > > But this is a Serializable transaction, so it only has one snapshot... > > This is where adding comments on patch theory would help.
Here's a much simpler version with more comments, and an explanation below. It handles the same set of isolation test specs. I dropped the calls to PredicateLockPage and CheckForSerializableConflictOut, which means I don't even need a snapshot (and if I ever do, you're right, doh, I should just use GetTransactionSnapshot()). They were part of my (so far unsuccessful) attempt to detect a conflict for read-write-unique-4.spec permutation "r2 w1 w2 c1 c2", where one transaction only writes. That leaves only a "hypothetical" CheckForSerializableConflictIn check (see below). This version seems to handle the obvious overlapping read-then-write scenarios I've contrived and seen in bug reports. I need to do more study of the SSI code and theory, and see if there are other conflicting schedules that are missed but could be detected at this point. (Possibly including that "r2 w1 w2 c1 c2" case.) Explanation: In unpatched master, when _bt_check_unique discovers that a key already exists in the index, it checks if the heap tuple is live by calling heap_hot_search, which in turn calls heap_hot_search_buffer, and then throws away the buffer and returns true or false. If the result is true, a unique constraint violation is raised. This patch introduces a drop-in replacement check_unique_tuple_still_live to call instead of heap_hot_search. The replacement function also calls heap_hot_search_buffer, but while it has the buffer it takes the opportunity to do an SSI conflict-in check. At that point we know that the transaction is already doomed to ereport, it's just a question of figuring out whether it should ereport 40001 first. The new conflict-in check tells the SSI machinery that we are going to insert at this index page, even though we aren't. It mirrors the one that happens right before _bt_findinsertloc and _bt_insertonpg, which would be reached if this were a non-unique index. It gives the SSI machinery a chance to detect conflicts that would be created by writing to this page. If it doesn't detect a conflict, behaviour is unchanged and the usual unique constraint violation will be raised. I'm not sure what to make of the pre-existing comment about following HOT-chains and concurrent index builds (which I moved). Does it mean there is some way that CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY could cause us to consider the wrong tuple and miss an SSI conflict? (Tangentially, I believe the nearby ON CONFLICT code needs some SSI checks and I may investigate that some time if someone doesn't beat me to it, but not as part of this patch.) -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers