Hi,
On 2024-12-02 11:43:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> > This theory seems very believable.
>
> I'm not convinced. I think there are two assumptions underlying
> bitmap scan:
>
> 1. Regardless of index contents, it's not okay for vacuum to remove
> tuples that an open transaction could potentially see. So the heap
> tuple will be there if we look, unless it was already dead (in which
> case it could have been replaced, so we have to check visibility of
> whatever we find).
I think the problematic scenario involves tuples that *nobody* can see. During
the bitmap index scan we don't know that though. Thus the tid gets inserted
into the bitmap. Then, before we visit the heap, a concurrent vacuum removes
the tuple from the indexes and then the heap and marks the page as
all-visible, as the deleted row version has been removed. Then, during the
bitmap heap scan, we do a VM lookup and see the page being all-visible and
thus assume there's a visible tuple pointed to by the tid.
No snapshot semantics protect against this, as the tuple is *not* visible to
anyone.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
