Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobD9O0X4PpMwT5uu33kBjMcz993Q_evLxEHVTu1LA4S6g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> ISTM if you want to do that you have an inherent race condition.
> That is, no matter what you do, the moment after you look the currently
> oldest open transaction could commit, allowing some other session's
> view of RecentGlobalXmin to move past what you think it is, so that
> that session could start pruning stuff.

It can't prune the stuff we care about if we've got a shared content
lock on the target buffer.  That's the trick pg_visibility uses:
                              /*                                * Time has passed since we computed
OldestXmin, so it's                                * possible that this tuple is
all-visible in reality even                                * though it doesn't appear so based on our
            * previously-computed value.  Let's
 
compute a new value so we                                * can be certain whether there is a problem.
            *                                * From a concurrency point of view,
 
it sort of sucks to                                * retake ProcArrayLock here while
we're holding the buffer                                * exclusively locked, but it should
be safe against                                * deadlocks, because surely
GetOldestXmin() should never take                                * a buffer lock. And this shouldn't
happen often, so it's                                * worth being careful so as to avoid
false positives.                                */

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication in the same cluster
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining