Re: contrib/pg_visibility fails regression under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 4:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:15 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > husky just reported $SUBJECT:
> >
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=husky&dt=2021-06-05%2013%3A42%3A17
> >
> > and I find I can reproduce that locally:
> >
> > diff -U3 /home/postgres/pgsql/contrib/pg_visibility/expected/pg_visibility.out
/home/postgres/pgsql/contrib/pg_visibility/results/pg_visibility.out
> > --- /home/postgres/pgsql/contrib/pg_visibility/expected/pg_visibility.out       2021-01-20 11:12:24.854346717
-0500
> > +++ /home/postgres/pgsql/contrib/pg_visibility/results/pg_visibility.out        2021-06-06 22:12:07.948890104
-0400
> > @@ -215,7 +215,8 @@
> >       0 | f           | f
> >       1 | f           | f
> >       2 | t           | t
> > -(3 rows)
> > +     3 | t           | t
> > +(4 rows)
> >
> >  select * from pg_check_frozen('copyfreeze');
> >   t_ctid
> > @@ -235,7 +236,8 @@
> >       0 | t           | t
> >       1 | f           | f
> >       2 | t           | t
> > -(3 rows)
> > +     3 | t           | t
> > +(4 rows)
> >
> >  select * from pg_check_frozen('copyfreeze');
> >   t_ctid
> >
> >
> > The test cases that are failing date back to January (7db0cd2145f),
> > so I think this is some side-effect of a recent commit, but I have
> > no idea which one.
>
> It seems like the recent revert (8e03eb92e9a) is relevant.
>
> After committing 7db0cd2145f we had the same regression test failure
> in January[1]. Then we fixed that issue by 39b66a91b. But since we
> recently reverted most of 39b66a91b, the same issue happened again.
>

So the cause of this failure seems the same as before. The failed test is,

begin;
truncate copyfreeze;
copy copyfreeze from stdin freeze;
1       '1'
2       '2'
3       '3'
4       '4'
5       '5'
\.
copy copyfreeze from stdin;
6       '6'
\.
copy copyfreeze from stdin freeze;
7       '7'
8       '8'
9       '9'
10      '10'
11      '11'
12      '12'
\.
commit;

If the target block cache is invalidated before the third COPY, we
will start to insert the frozen tuple into a new page, resulting in
adding two blocks in total during the third COPY. I think we still
need the following part of the reverted code so that we don't leave
the page partially empty after relcache invalidation:

--- a/src/backend/access/heap/hio.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/heap/hio.c
@@ -407,19 +407,19 @@ RelationGetBufferForTuple(Relation relation, Size len,
         * target.
         */
        targetBlock = GetPageWithFreeSpace(relation, targetFreeSpace);
-   }

-   /*
-    * If the FSM knows nothing of the rel, try the last page before we give
-    * up and extend.  This avoids one-tuple-per-page syndrome during
-    * bootstrapping or in a recently-started system.
-    */
-   if (targetBlock == InvalidBlockNumber)
-   {
-       BlockNumber nblocks = RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(relation);
+       /*
+        * If the FSM knows nothing of the rel, try the last page before we
+        * give up and extend.  This avoids one-tuple-per-page syndrome during
+        * bootstrapping or in a recently-started system.
+        */
+       if (targetBlock == InvalidBlockNumber)
+       {
+           BlockNumber nblocks = RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(relation);

-       if (nblocks > 0)
-           targetBlock = nblocks - 1;
+           if (nblocks > 0)
+               targetBlock = nblocks - 1;
+       }
    }

Attached the patch that brings back the above change.

Regards,


--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/