Re: Catalog invalidations vs catalog scans vs ScanPgRelation() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Robert, Tom, it'd be great if you could look through this thread. I
think there's a problem here (and it has gotten worse after the
introduction of catalog snapshots). Both of you at least dabbled in
related code.


On 2020-02-29 12:17:07 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-02-28 22:10:52 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > So, um. What happens is that doDeletion() does a catalog scan, which
> > sets a snapshot. The results of that catalog scan are then used to
> > perform modifications. But at that point there's no guarantee that we
> > still hold *any* snapshot, as e.g. invalidations can trigger the catalog
> > snapshot being released.
> > 
> > I don't see how that's safe. Without ->xmin preventing that,
> > intermediate row versions that we did look up could just get vacuumed
> > away, and replaced with a different row. That does seem like a serious
> > issue?
> > 
> > I think there's likely a lot of places that can hit this? What makes it
> > safe for InvalidateCatalogSnapshot()->SnapshotResetXmin() to release
> > ->xmin when there previously has been *any* catalog access? Because in
> > contrast to normal table modifications, there's currently nothing at all
> > forcing us to hold a snapshot between catalog lookups an their
> > modifications?
> > 
> > Am I missing something? Or is this a fairly significant hole in our
> > arrangements?
> 
> I still think that's true.  In a first iteration I hacked around the
> problem by explicitly registering a catalog snapshot in
> RemoveTempRelations(). That *sometimes* allows to get through the
> regression tests without the assertions triggering.

The attached two patches (they're not meant to be applied) reliably get
through the regression tests. But I suspect I'd have to at least do a
CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS run to find all the actually vulnerable places.


> But I don't think that's good enough (even if we fixed the other
> potential crashes similarly). The only reason that avoids the asserts is
> because in nearly all other cases there's also a user snapshot that's
> pushed. But that pushed snapshot can have an xmin that's newer than the
> catalog snapshot, which means we're still in danger of tids from catalog
> scans being outdated.
> 
> My preliminary conclusion is that it's simply not safe to do
> SnapshotResetXmin() from within InvalidateCatalogSnapshot(),
> PopActiveSnapshot(), UnregisterSnapshotFromOwner() etc. Instead we need
> to defer the SnapshotResetXmin() call until at least
> CommitTransactionCommand()? Outside of that there ought (with exception
> of multi-transaction commands, but they have to be careful anyway) to be
> no "in progress" sequences of related catalog lookups/modifications.
> 
> Alternatively we could ensure that all catalog lookup/mod sequences
> ensure that the first catalog snapshot is registered. But that seems
> like a gargantuan task?

I also just noticed comments of this style in a few places
     * Start a transaction so we can access pg_database, and get a snapshot.
     * We don't have a use for the snapshot itself, but we're interested in
     * the secondary effect that it sets RecentGlobalXmin.  (This is critical
     * for anything that reads heap pages, because HOT may decide to prune
     * them even if the process doesn't attempt to modify any tuples.)
followed by code like

    StartTransactionCommand();
    (void) GetTransactionSnapshot();

    rel = table_open(DatabaseRelationId, AccessShareLock);
    scan = table_beginscan_catalog(rel, 0, NULL);

which is not safe at all, unfortunately. The snapshot is not
pushed/active, therefore invalidations processed e.g. as part of the
table_open() could execute a InvalidateCatalogSnapshot(), which in turn
would remove the catalog snapshot from the pairing heap and
SnapshotResetXmin().  And poof, the backend's xmin is gone.

Greetings,

Andres Freund