Hi,
On 2019-12-19 09:50:44 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 02:22, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-12-18 18:06:21 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 17:35, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:18 AM Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > This was my first concern when I thought about it, but I realised
> > that
> > > > by taking a snapshot and then calculating xmin normally, this problem
> > would
> > > > go away.
> > > >
> > > > Why? As soon as a transaction aborts...
> > > >
> > >
> > > So this is the same discussion as elsewhere about potentially aborted
> > > transactions...
> > > AFAIK, the worst that happens in that case is that the reading
> > transaction
> > > will end with an ERROR, similar to a serializable error.
> >
> > I don't think that's all that can happen. E.g. the toast identifier
> > might have been reused, and there might be a different datum in
> > there. Which then means we'll end up calling operators on data that's
> > potentially for a different datatype - it's trivial to cause crashes
> > that way. And, albeit harder, possible to do more than that.
> >
>
> On the patch as proposed this wouldn't be possible because a toast row
> can't be vacuumed and then reused while holding back xmin, at least as I
> understand it.
Vacuum and pruning remove rows where xmin didn't commit, without testing
against the horizon. Which makes sense, because normally there's so far
no snapshot including them. Unless we were to weaken that logic -
which'd have bloat impacts - a snapshot wouldn't guarantee anything
about the non-removal of such tuples, unless I am missing something.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
