On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:25:55PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Andres Freund <andres@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
