Failure while inserting parent tuple to B-tree is not fun - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Splitting a B-tree page is a two-stage process: First, the page is 
split, and then a downlink for the new right page is inserted into the 
parent (which might recurse to split the parent page, too). What happens 
if inserting the downlink fails for some reason? I tried that out, and 
it turns out that it's not nice.

I used this to cause a failure:

> --- a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtinsert.c
> @@ -1669,6 +1669,8 @@ _bt_insert_parent(Relation rel,
>              _bt_relbuf(rel, pbuf);
>          }
>
> +        elog(ERROR, "fail!");
> +
>          /* get high key from left page == lowest key on new right page */
>          ritem = (IndexTuple) PageGetItem(page,
>                                           PageGetItemId(page, P_HIKEY));

postgres=# create table foo (i int4 primary key);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# insert into foo select generate_series(1, 10000);
ERROR:  fail!

That's not surprising. But when I removed that elog again and restarted 
the server, I still can't insert. The index is permanently broken:

postgres=# insert into foo select generate_series(1, 10000);
ERROR:  failed to re-find parent key in index "foo_pkey" for split pages 4/5

In real life, you would get a failure like this e.g if you run out of 
memory or disk space while inserting the downlink to the parent. 
Although rare in practice, it's no fun if it happens.

I fixed the the same problem in GiST a few years back, by making it 
tolerate missing downlinks, and inserting them lazily. The B-tree code 
tolerates them already on scans, but gets confused on insertion, as seen 
above. I propose that we use the same approach I used with GiST, and add 
a flag to the page header to indicate "the downlink hasn't been inserted 
yet". When insertion (or vacuum) bumps into a flagged page, it can 
finish the incomplete action by inserting the downlink.

- Heikki



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v6.2
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v6.2