On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Teodor Sigaev <teo...@sigaev.ru> wrote:
>>> Added, see attached patch (based on v3.1)
>> With this applied, I am getting a couple errors I have not seen before
>> after extensive crash recovery testing:
>> ERROR:  attempted to delete invisible tuple
>> ERROR:  unexpected chunk number 1 (expected 2) for toast value
>> 100338365 in pg_toast_16425
> Huh, seems, it's not related to GIN at all... Indexes don't play with toast
> machinery. The single place where this error can occur is a heap_delete() -
> deleting already deleted tuple.

Those are two independent errors.  The delete invisible tuple error
doesn't occur on toast tables.

The actual statement triggering the error is an update statement.
Since it is showing up in the delete path, I assume it must be an
update where the new tuple goes to a different page.  But, if the
soon-to-be-old tuple is not visible, why is the update trying to
update it in the first place?  It seems like the different parts of
the code disagree on what is visible.

update foo set count=count+1,text_array=$1 where text_array @> $2

I agree it might not have anything to do with gin indexes, but I
didn't see it in testing anything else.  It might be a wrap-around
problem which for some reason only the gin test is efficient at
evoking. What I've done now is apply your v4 patch directly to
e95680832854cf300e64c1 and I am trying to see if it also has the
problem.  If that is clean, then it is probably an independently
introduced bug which is just getting exercised by the gin index stress
test.  If that is the case I'll try to git bisect forward, but that
could take weeks given the runtimes involved.  If that is dirty, then
maybe the FSM vacuuming patch introduced/uncovered more than one bug,
and should be reverted.

>> I've restarted the test harness with intentional crashes turned off,
>> to see if the problems are related to crash recovery or are more
>> generic than that.

I do not see the problem when there is no crash-recovery cycling involved.

I also do not see the problem when compiled under --enable-cassert,
but that could just be because compiling that way makes it too slow to
get in sufficient testing to hit the bug; before I gave up.

>> I've never seen these particular problems before, so don't have much
>> insight into what might be going on or how to debug it.
> Check my reasoning: In version 4 I added a remebering of tail of pending
> list into blknoFinish variable. And when we read page which was a tail on
> cleanup start then we sets cleanupFinish variable and after cleaning that
> page we will stop further cleanup. Any insert caused during cleanup will be
> placed after blknoFinish (corner case: in that page), so, vacuum should not
> miss tuples marked as deleted.

Yes, I agree with the correctness of v4.  But I do wonder if we should
use that early stopping for vacuum and gin_clean_pending_list, rather
than just using it for user backends.  While I think correctness
allows it to stop early, since these routines are explicitly about
cleaning things up it seems like they should volunteer to clean the
whole thing.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to