Commit Graph

2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Daniel Gustafsson 0c67e9e566 Fix typo in MVCC test comment
The optimization is named kill_prior_tuple but was accidentally
spelled kill_prio_tuple in the test.

Author: Mingli Zhang <avamingli@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/82d3e66a-d8ae-4bfa-943e-29c5add0743f@Spark
2022-08-25 10:31:20 +02:00
Andres Freund 90c885cdab Increment xactCompletionCount during subtransaction abort.
Snapshot caching, introduced in 623a9ba79b, did not increment
xactCompletionCount during subtransaction abort. That could lead to an older
snapshot being reused. That is, at least as far as I can see, not a
correctness issue (for MVCC snapshots there's no difference between "in
progress" and "aborted"). The only difference between the old and new
snapshots would be a newer ->xmax.

While HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC makes the same visibility determination, reusing
the old snapshot leads HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC to not set
HEAP_XMIN_INVALID. Which subsequently causes the kill_prior_tuple optimization
to not kick in (via HeapTupleIsSurelyDead() returning false). The performance
effects of doing the same index-lookups over and over again is how the issue
was discovered...

Fix the issue by incrementing xactCompletionCount in
XidCacheRemoveRunningXids. It already acquires ProcArrayLock exclusively,
making that an easy proposition.

Add a test to ensure that kill_prior_tuple prevents index growth when it
involves aborted subtransaction of the current transaction.

Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210406043521.lopeo7bbigad3n6t@alap3.anarazel.de
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20210317055718.v6qs3ltzrformqoa%40alap3.anarazel.de
2021-04-06 09:24:50 -07:00