On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:01 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > We can either do that, or we can throw an error concerning corruption
> > when heap_page_prune notices orphaned tuples. Neither seems
> > particularly appealing. But it definitely makes no sense to allow
> > lazy_scan_prune to spin in a futile attempt to reach agreement with
> > heap_page_prune about a DEAD tuple really being DEAD.
>
> Yea, this sucks. I think we should go for the rewrite of the
> heap_prune_chain() logic. The current approach is just never going to be
> robust.
No, it just isn't robust enough. But it's not that hard to fix. My
patch really wasn't invasive.
I confirmed that HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() and
heap_prune_satisfies_vacuum() agree that the heap-only tuple at offnum
2 is HEAPTUPLE_DEAD -- they are in agreement, as expected (so no
reason to think that there is a new bug involved). The problem here is
indeed just that heap_prune_chain() can't "get to" the tuple, given
its current design.
For anybody else that doesn't follow what we're talking about:
The "doesn't chain to anything else" code at the start of
heap_prune_chain() won't get to the heap-only tuple at offnum 2, since
the tuple is itself HeapTupleHeaderIsHotUpdated() -- the expectation
is that it'll be processed later on, once we locate the HOT chain's
root item. Since, of course, the "root item" was already LP_DEAD
before we even reached heap_page_prune() (on account of the pg_surgery
corruption), there is no possible way that that can happen later on.
And so we cannot find the same heap-only tuple and mark it LP_UNUSED
(which is how we always deal with HEAPTUPLE_DEAD heap-only tuples)
during pruning.
--
Peter Geoghegan
