Hi Michail!
Very interesting bug.
> 16 марта 2020 г., в 19:07, Michail Nikolaev <michail.nikolaev@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
> So, I think right way is to lock all three pages as it is done on the
> primary. As far as I can see it is not causes any real performance
> regression.
It seems to me that it's exactly the same check that I was trying to verify in amcheck patch [0].
But there it was verified inside amcheck, but here it is verified by index scan.
Basically, one cannot check that two vice-versa pointers are in agreement without locking both.
As a result, they must be changed under lock too.
In my view, lock coupling is necessary here. I'm not sure we really need to lock three pages though.
Is there a reason why concurrency protocol on standby should not be exactly the same as on primary?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/24/2254/
