Re: GiST VACUUM - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> 12 июля 2018 г., в 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> написал(а):
>
> On 12/07/18 19:06, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>> 11 июля 2018 г., в 0:07, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
>>> написал(а):
>>> This seems misplaced. This code deals with internal pages, and as
>>> far as I can see, this patch never marks internal pages as deleted,
>>> only leaf pages. However, we should have something like this in the
>>> leaf-page branch, to deal with the case that an insertion lands on
>>> a page that was concurrently deleted. Did you have any tests, where
>>> an insertion runs concurrently with vacuum, that would exercise
>>> this?
>> That bug could manifest only in case of crash between removing
>> downlinks and marking pages deleted.
>
> Hmm. The downlink is removed first, so I don't think you can see that situation after a crash. After a crash, you
mighthave some empty, orphaned, pages that have already been unlinked from the parent, but a search/insert should never
encounterthem. 
>
> Actually, now that I think about it more, I'm not happy with leaving orphaned pages like that behind. Let's WAL-log
theremoval of the downlink, and marking the leaf pages as deleted, in one WAL record, to avoid that. 

OK, will do this. But this will complicate WAL replay seriously, and I do not know a proper way to test that (BTW there
isGiST amcheck in progress, but I decided to leave it for a while). 

>
> But the situation in gistdoinsert(), where you encounter a deleted leaf page, could happen during normal operation,
ifvacuum runs concurrently with an insert. Insertion locks only one page at a time, as it descends the tree, so after
ithas released the lock on the parent, but before it has locked the child, vacuum might have deleted the page. In the
latestpatch, you're checking for that just before swapping the shared lock for an exclusive one, but I think that's
wrong;you need to check for that after swapping the lock, because otherwise vacuum might delete the page while you're
notholding the lock. 
Looks like a valid concern, I'll move that code again.
>
>> I do not know how to test this
>> reliably. Internal pages are locked before leafs and locks are
>> coupled. No cuncurrent backend can see downlinks to pages being
>> deleted, unless crash happens.
>
> Are you sure? At a quick glance, I don't think the locks are coupled.


Sorry for overquoting

+    /* rescan inner pages that had empty child pages */
+    foreach(cell,rescanList)
+    {
+        Buffer        buffer;
+        Page        page;
+        OffsetNumber i,
+                    maxoff;
+        IndexTuple    idxtuple;
+        ItemId        iid;
+        OffsetNumber todelete[MaxOffsetNumber];
+        Buffer        buftodelete[MaxOffsetNumber];
+        int            ntodelete = 0;
+
+        buffer = ReadBufferExtended(rel, MAIN_FORKNUM, (BlockNumber)lfirst_int(cell),
+                                    RBM_NORMAL, info->strategy);
+        LockBuffer(buffer, GIST_EXCLUSIVE);
Here's first lock
+        gistcheckpage(rel, buffer);
+        page = (Page) BufferGetPage(buffer);
+
+        Assert(!GistPageIsLeaf(page));
+
+        maxoff = PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(page);
+
+        for (i = OffsetNumberNext(FirstOffsetNumber); i <= maxoff; i = OffsetNumberNext(i))
+        {
+            Buffer        leafBuffer;
+            Page        leafPage;
+
+            iid = PageGetItemId(page, i);
+            idxtuple = (IndexTuple) PageGetItem(page, iid);
+
+            leafBuffer = ReadBufferExtended(rel, MAIN_FORKNUM, ItemPointerGetBlockNumber(&(idxtuple->t_tid)),
+                                RBM_NORMAL, info->strategy);
+            LockBuffer(leafBuffer, GIST_EXCLUSIVE);
now locks are coupled in a top-down descent


>
> We do need some way of testing this..

Can we test replication of concurrent VACUUM and inserts in existing test suit? I just do not know.
I can do this tests manually if this is enough.


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.