Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtranslinks incorrectly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtranslinks incorrectly
Date
Msg-id 20170424185944.bjpb3yizeybv75hd@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtranslinks incorrectly  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtranslinks incorrectly  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-04-24 13:29:11 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 April 2017 at 00:25, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > if the subxid->xid mapping doesn't actually exist - as it's the case
> > with this bug afaics - we'll not get the correct toplevel
> > transaction.
> 
> The nature of the corruption is that in some cases
> * a subxid will point to nothing (even though in most cases it was
> already set correctly)
> * the parent will point to a subxid

Right. Those cases aren't that different from the point of trying to
find the parent of an subxid.


> > Which'll mean the following block:
> >                 /*
> >                  * We now have either a top-level xid higher than xmin or an
> >                  * indeterminate xid. We don't know whether it's top level or subxact
> >                  * but it doesn't matter. If it's present, the xid is visible.
> >                  */
> >                 for (j = 0; j < snapshot->subxcnt; j++)
> >                 {
> >                         if (TransactionIdEquals(xid, snapshot->subxip[j]))
> >                                 return true;
> >                 }
> > won't work correctly if suboverflowed.
> 
> Your example of snapshots taken during recovery is not correct.

Oh?


> Note that SubTransGetTopmostTransaction() returns a valid, running
> xid, even though it is the wrong one.

Sure.


> Snapshots work differently on standbys - we store all known running
> xids, so the test still passes correctly, even when overflowed.

I don't think that's generally true.  Isn't that precisely what
ProcArrayStruct->lastOverflowedXid is about?  If we have a snapshot
that's suboverflowed due to the lastOverflowedXid cutoff, then we the
subxip array does *not* contain all known running xids anymore, we rely
on pg_subtrans to only guarantee that toplevel xids are stored in the
KnownAssignedXids machinery.

See:* When we throw away subXIDs from KnownAssignedXids, we need to keep track of* that, similarly to tracking overflow
ofa PGPROC's subxids array.  We do* that by remembering the lastOverflowedXID, ie the last thrown-away subXID.* As long
asthat is within the range of interesting XIDs, we have to assume* that subXIDs are missing from snapshots.  (Note that
subXIDoverflow occurs* on primary when 65th subXID arrives, whereas on standby it occurs when 64th* subXID arrives -
thatis not an error.)
 
/* * Highest subxid that has been removed from KnownAssignedXids array to * prevent overflow; or InvalidTransactionId
ifnone.  We track this for * similar reasons to tracking overflowing cached subxids in PGXACT * entries.  Must hold
exclusiveProcArrayLock to change this, and shared * lock to read it. */TransactionId lastOverflowedXid;
 


Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] to-do item for explain analyze of hash aggregates?
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] to-do item for explain analyze of hash aggregates?