On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:30 PM, R, Siva <sivasubr@amazon.com> wrote:
> We are currently investigating an issue with a Gin index containing
> duplicate item pointers for one of its keys. While we are trying to
> reproduce this issue, we wanted to reach out to the community to validate
> our current working theory.
Please define "a GIN index containing duplicate item pointers". Are
the keys duplicated, the item pointers, or both? Where are the
duplicates contained (what part of the GIN structure)?
> Consider a tuple that is inserted and just updated/deleted and passes the
> dead-to-all horizon. At this point, the old tuple id (corresponding to the
> insert) is eligible for vacuum.
> Due to the above bug, vacuum can skip clean up of pending list if a user
> backend already has a lock on it before proceeding to vacuum the gin posting
> tree.
> At this point, it is possible that the user backend flushes the pending list
> containing the dead tuple to the main gin index structure after vacuum has
> already passed over. Vacuum has marked that tuple id slot as re-usable when
> there is actually an index tuple pointing to it.
It sounds like you're talking about a case where a TID value is
recycled by VACUUM, despite the fact that the GIN structure still
contains a TID intended to point to the original tuple -- an index
tuple that should have been killed before VACUUM recycled the
TID/killed the heap tuple. The TID points to a valid heap tuple, but
the wrong one. (This is a corruption scenario that we saw from time to
time in past cases where VACUUMing of indexes had bugs).
Is that general understanding of what you've said correct?
> Given the above, our question is to find out if the above is a valid case
> for having duplicate tids in the index tree structure without the fix for
> the above bug (in non-debug builds where "Assert" is disabled) with the
> following sequence of events:
I think that you'll be very lucky to get a useful answer to this
specific question. The recent bugfix was based on an observation that
Sawada-san made about the code not doing what it claimed to do, and
clearly needs to do. It's very hard to give you any assurance that
"duplicate TIDs" could be explained by the bug.
FWIW, I continue to have misgivings about pending list VACUUMing. I
plan to look at it again.
--
Peter Geoghegan
