For no obvious reason, isolationtester has always insisted that
session and step names be written with double quotes. This is
fairly tedious and does little for test readability, especially
since the names that people actually choose almost always look
like normal identifiers. Hence, let's tweak the lexer to allow
SQL-like identifiers not only double-quoted strings.
(They're SQL-like, not exactly SQL, because I didn't add any
case-folding logic. Also there's no provision for U&"..." names,
not that anyone's likely to care.)
There is one incompatibility introduced by this change: if you write
"foo""bar" with no space, that used to be taken as two identifiers,
but now it's just one identifier with an embedded quote mark.
I converted all the src/test/isolation/ specfiles to remove
unnecessary double quotes, but stopped there because my
eyes were glazing over already.
Like 741d7f104, back-patch to all supported branches, so that this
isn't a stumbling block for back-patching isolation test changes.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/759113.1623861959@sss.pgh.pa.us
When key-share locking a tuple that has been not-key-updated, and the
update is a committed transaction, in some cases we raised
serializability errors:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update
Because the key-share doesn't conflict with the update, the error is
unnecessary and inconsistent with the case that the update hasn't
committed yet. This causes problems for some usage patterns, even if it
can be claimed that it's sufficient to retry the aborted transaction:
given a steady stream of updating transactions and a long locking
transaction, the long transaction can be starved indefinitely despite
multiple retries.
To fix, we recognize that HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate can return
HeapTupleUpdated when an updating transaction has committed, and that we
need to deal with that case exactly as if it were a non-committed
update: verify whether the two operations conflict, and if not, carry on
normally. If they do conflict, however, there is a difference: in the
HeapTupleBeingUpdated case we can just sleep until the concurrent
transaction is gone, while in the HeapTupleUpdated case this is not
possible and we must raise an error instead.
Per trouble report from Olivier Dony.
In addition to a couple of test cases that verify the changed behavior,
I added a test case to verify the behavior that remains unchanged,
namely that errors are raised when a update that modifies the key is
used. That must still generate serializability errors. One
pre-existing test case changes behavior; per discussion, the new
behavior is actually the desired one.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560AA479.4080807@odoo.comhttps://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151014164844.3019.25750@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch to 9.3, where the problem appeared.
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera