On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:25:55PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2016-07-18 10:02:52 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Consider the below scenario. > >> > >> Vacuum > >> a. acquires a cleanup lock for page - 10 > >> b. busy in checking visibility of tuples > >> --assume, here it takes some time and in the meantime Session-1 > >> performs step (a) and (b) and start waiting in step- (c) > >> c. marks the page as all-visible (PageSetAllVisible) > >> d. unlockandrelease the buffer > >> > >> Session-1 > >> a. In heap_lock_tuple(), readbuffer for page-10 > >> b. check PageIsAllVisible(), found page is not all-visible, so didn't > >> acquire the visbilitymap_pin > >> c. LockBuffer in ExlusiveMode - here it will wait for vacuum to > >> release the lock > >> d. Got the lock, but now the page is marked as all-visible, so ideally > >> need to recheck the page and acquire the visibilitymap_pin > > > > So, I've tried pretty hard to reproduce that. While the theory above is > > sound, I believe the relevant code-path is essentially dead for SQL > > callable code, because we'll always hold a buffer pin before even > > entering heap_update/heap_lock_tuple. > > > > It is possible that we don't hold any buffer pin before entering > heap_update() and or heap_lock_tuple(). For heap_update(), it is > possible when it enters via simple_heap_update() path. For > heap_lock_tuple(), it is possible for ON CONFLICT DO Update statement > and may be others as well.
This is currently listed as a 9.6 open item. Is it indeed a regression in 9.6, or do released versions have the same defect? If it is a 9.6 regression, do you happen to know which commit, or at least which feature, caused it? Thanks, nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers