Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items
Date
Msg-id CA+fd4k7yzRvxC6woe47-qYsJRVqeJk3S_aWH9JYFTEG60FAcYg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items
Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 04:05, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:56 PM Masahiko Sawada
> <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Here is the reproducer:
>
> What version of Postgres did you notice the actual customer issue on?
> I ask because I wonder if the work on B-Tree indexes in Postgres 12
> affects the precise behavior you get here with real world workloads.
> It probably makes _bt_killitems() more effective with some workloads,
> which naturally increases the likelihood of having multiple FPI issued
> in the manner that you describe. OTOH, it might make it less likely
> with low cardinality indexes, since large groups of garbage duplicate
> tuples tend to get concentrated on just a few leaf pages.
>
> > The inner test in the comment "found the item" never tests the item
> > for being dead. So maybe we can add !ItemIdIsDead(iid) to that
> > condition. But there still is a race condition of recording multiple
> > FPIs can happen. Maybe a better solution is to change the lock to
> > exclusive, at least when wal_log_hints = on, so that only one process
> > can run this code -- the reduction in concurrency might be won back by
> > the fact that we don't wal-log the page multiple times.
>
> I like the idea of checking !ItemIdIsDead(iid) as a further condition
> of killing the item -- there is clearly no point in doing work to kill
> an item that is already dead. I don't like the idea of using an
> exclusive buffer lock (even if it's just with wal_log_hints = on),
> though.
>

Okay. I think only adding the check would also help with reducing the
likelihood. How about the changes for the current HEAD I've attached?

Related to this behavior on btree indexes, this can happen even on
heaps during searching heap tuples. To reduce the likelihood of that
more generally I wonder if we can acquire a lock on buffer descriptor
right before XLogSaveBufferForHint() and set a flag to the buffer
descriptor that indicates that we're about to log FPI for hint bit so
that concurrent process can be aware of that.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada            http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: doc review for v13
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: SyncRepLock acquired exclusively in default configuration