In serializable mode, heap_hot_search_buffer() incorrectly acquired a
predicate lock on the root tuple, not the returned tuple that satisfied
the visibility checks. As explained in README-SSI, the predicate lock does
not need to be copied or extended to other tuple versions, but for that to
work, the correct, visible, tuple version must be locked in the first
place.
The original SSI commit had this bug in it, but it was fixed back in 2013,
in commit 81fbbfe335. But unfortunately, it was reintroduced a few months
later in commit b89e151054. Wising up from that, add a regression test
to cover this, so that it doesn't get reintroduced again. Also, move the
code that sets 't_self', so that it happens at the same time that the
other HeapTuple fields are set, to make it more clear that all the code in
the loop operate on the "current" tuple in the chain, not the root tuple.
Bug spotted by Andres Freund, analysis and original fix by Thomas Munro,
test case and some additional changes to the fix by Heikki Linnakangas.
Backpatch to all supported versions (9.4).
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190731210630.nqhszuktygwftjty%40alap3.anarazel.de
Commit a1c1af2a1 added logic in the deadlock checker to handle lock
grouping, but it was very poorly tested, as evidenced by the bug
fixed in 3420851a2. Add a test case that exercises that a bit better
(and catches the bug --- if you revert 3420851a2, this will hang).
Since it's pretty hard to get parallel workers to take exclusive
regular locks that their parents don't already have, this test operates
by creating a deadlock among advisory locks taken in parallel workers.
To make that happen, we must override the parallel-safety labeling of
the advisory-lock functions, which we do by putting them in mislabeled,
non-inlinable wrapper functions.
We also have to remove the redundant PreventAdvisoryLocksInParallelMode
checks in lockfuncs.c. That seems fine though; if some user accidentally
does what this test is intentionally doing, not much harm will ensue.
(If there are any remaining bugs that are reachable that way, they're
probably reachable in other ways too.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3243.1564437314@sss.pgh.pa.us
This puts back reverted commit de87a084c0, with some bug fixes.
When two (or more) transactions are waiting for transaction T1 to release a
tuple-level lock, and transaction T1 upgrades its lock to a higher level, a
spurious deadlock can be reported among the waiting transactions when T1
finishes. The simplest example case seems to be:
T1: select id from job where name = 'a' for key share;
Y: select id from job where name = 'a' for update; -- starts waiting for T1
Z: select id from job where name = 'a' for key share;
T1: update job set name = 'b' where id = 1;
Z: update job set name = 'c' where id = 1; -- starts waiting for T1
T1: rollback;
At this point, transaction Y is rolled back on account of a deadlock: Y
holds the heavyweight tuple lock and is waiting for the Xmax to be released,
while Z holds part of the multixact and tries to acquire the heavyweight
lock (per protocol) and goes to sleep; once T1 releases its part of the
multixact, Z is awakened only to be put back to sleep on the heavyweight
lock that Y is holding while sleeping. Kaboom.
This can be avoided by having Z skip the heavyweight lock acquisition. As
far as I can see, the biggest downside is that if there are multiple Z
transactions, the order in which they resume after T1 finishes is not
guaranteed.
Backpatch to 9.6. The patch applies cleanly on 9.5, but the new tests don't
work there (because isolationtester is not smart enough), so I'm not going
to risk it.
Author: Oleksii Kliukin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/B9C9D7CD-EB94-4635-91B6-E558ACEC0EC3@hintbits.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2815.1560521451@sss.pgh.pa.us
This reverts commits 3da73d6839 and de87a084c0.
This code has some tricky corner cases that I'm not sure are correct and
not properly tested anyway, so I'm reverting the whole thing for next
week's releases (reintroducing the deadlock bug that we set to fix).
I'll try again afterwards.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1hbXKQ-0003g1-0C@gemulon.postgresql.org
When two (or more) transactions are waiting for transaction T1 to release a
tuple-level lock, and transaction T1 upgrades its lock to a higher level, a
spurious deadlock can be reported among the waiting transactions when T1
finishes. The simplest example case seems to be:
T1: select id from job where name = 'a' for key share;
Y: select id from job where name = 'a' for update; -- starts waiting for X
Z: select id from job where name = 'a' for key share;
T1: update job set name = 'b' where id = 1;
Z: update job set name = 'c' where id = 1; -- starts waiting for X
T1: rollback;
At this point, transaction Y is rolled back on account of a deadlock: Y
holds the heavyweight tuple lock and is waiting for the Xmax to be released,
while Z holds part of the multixact and tries to acquire the heavyweight
lock (per protocol) and goes to sleep; once X releases its part of the
multixact, Z is awakened only to be put back to sleep on the heavyweight
lock that Y is holding while sleeping. Kaboom.
This can be avoided by having Z skip the heavyweight lock acquisition. As
far as I can see, the biggest downside is that if there are multiple Z
transactions, the order in which they resume after X finishes is not
guaranteed.
Backpatch to 9.6. The patch applies cleanly on 9.5, but the new tests don't
work there (because isolationtester is not smart enough), so I'm not going
to risk it.
Author: Oleksii Kliukin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/B9C9D7CD-EB94-4635-91B6-E558ACEC0EC3@hintbits.com
This path previously was not reliably covered. There was some
heuristic coverage via insert-conflict-toast.spec, but that test is
not deterministic, and only tested for a somewhat specific bug.
Backpatch, as this is a complicated and otherwise untested code
path. Unfortunately 9.5 cannot handle two waiting sessions, and thus
cannot execute this test.
Triggered by a conversion with Melanie Plageman.
Author: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAKRu_a7hbyrk=wveHYhr4LbcRnRCG=yPUVoQYB9YO1CdUBE9Q@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch: 9.5-
Previously, while primary keys could be made on partitioned tables, it
was not possible to define foreign keys that reference those primary
keys. Now it is possible to do that.
Author: Álvaro Herrera
Reviewed-by: Amit Langote, Jesper Pedersen
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181102234158.735b3fevta63msbj@alvherre.pgsql
This adds the CONCURRENTLY option to the REINDEX command. A REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY on a specific index creates a new index (like CREATE
INDEX CONCURRENTLY), then renames the old index away and the new index
in place and adjusts the dependencies, and then drops the old
index (like DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY). The REINDEX command also has
the capability to run its other variants (TABLE, DATABASE) with the
CONCURRENTLY option (but not SYSTEM).
The reindexdb command gets the --concurrently option.
Author: Michael Paquier, Andreas Karlsson, Peter Eisentraut
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund, Fujii Masao, Jim Nasby, Sergei Kornilov
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/60052986-956b-4478-45ed-8bd119e9b9cf%402ndquadrant.com#74948a1044c56c5e817a5050f554ddee
Previously, the SERIALIZABLE isolation level prevented parallel query
from being used. Allow the two features to be used together by
sharing the leader's SERIALIZABLEXACT with parallel workers.
An extra per-SERIALIZABLEXACT LWLock is introduced to make it safe to
share, and new logic is introduced to coordinate the early release
of the SERIALIZABLEXACT required for the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE
optimization, as follows:
The first backend to observe the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE flag (set by
some other transaction) will 'partially release' the SERIALIZABLEXACT,
meaning that the conflicts and locks it holds are released, but the
SERIALIZABLEXACT itself will remain active because other backends
might still have a pointer to it.
Whenever any backend notices the SXACT_FLAG_RO_SAFE flag, it clears
its own MySerializableXact variable and frees local resources so that
it can skip SSI checks for the rest of the transaction. In the
special case of the leader process, it transfers the SERIALIZABLEXACT
to a new variable SavedSerializableXact, so that it can be completely
released at the end of the transaction after all workers have exited.
Remove the serializable_okay flag added to CreateParallelContext() by
commit 9da0cc35, because it's now redundant.
Author: Thomas Munro
Reviewed-by: Haribabu Kommi, Robert Haas, Masahiko Sawada, Kevin Grittner
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0gXGYhtrVDWOTHS8SQQy_=S9xo+8oCxGLWZAOoeJ=yzQ@mail.gmail.com
Isolation test suite of GIN predicate locking was criticized for being too slow,
especially under Valgrind. This commit is intended to accelerate it. Tests are
simplified in the following ways.
1) Amount of data is reduced. We're now close to the minimal amount of data,
which produces at least one posting tree and at least two pages of entry
tree.
2) Three isolation tests are merged into one.
3) Only one tuple is queried from posting tree. So, locking of index is the
same, but tuple locks are not propagated to relation lock. Also, it is
faster.
4) Test cases itself are simplified. Now each test case run just one INSERT
and one SELECT involving GIN, which either conflict or not.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20181204000740.ok2q53nvkftwu43a%40alap3.anarazel.de
Reported-by: Andres Freund
Tested-by: Andrew Dunstan
Author: Alexander Korotkov
Backpatch-through: 11
Inheritance trees can include temporary tables if the parent is
permanent, which makes possible the presence of multiple temporary
children from different sessions. Trying to issue a TRUNCATE on the
parent in this scenario causes a failure, so similarly to any other
queries just ignore such cases, which makes TRUNCATE work
transparently.
This makes truncation behave similarly to any other DML query working on
the parent table with queries which need to be work on the children. A
set of isolation tests is added to cover basic cases.
Reported-by: Zhou Digoal
Author: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15565-ce67a48d0244436a@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 9.4
When specified, this option allows VACUUM to skip the work on a relation
if there is a conflicting lock on it when trying to open it at the
beginning of its processing.
Similarly to autovacuum, this comes with a couple of limitations while
the relation is processed which can cause the process to still block:
- when opening the relation indexes.
- when acquiring row samples for table inheritance trees, partition trees
or certain types of foreign tables, and that a lock is taken on some
leaves of such trees.
Author: Nathan Bossart
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier, Andres Freund, Masahiko Sawada
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9EF7EBE4-720D-4CF1-9D0E-4403D7E92990@amazon.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171201160907.27110.74730@wrigleys.postgresql.org
A caller of VACUUM can perform early lookup obtention which can cause
other sessions to block on the request done, causing potentially DOS
attacks as even a non-privileged user can attempt a vacuum fill of a
critical catalog table to block even all incoming connection attempts.
Contrary to TRUNCATE, a client could attempt a system-wide VACUUM after
building the list of relations to VACUUM, which can cause vacuum_rel()
or analyze_rel() to try to lock the relation but the operation would
just block. When the client specifies a list of relations and the
relation needs to be skipped, ownership checks are done when building
the list of relations to work on, preventing a later lock attempt.
vacuum_rel() already had the sanity checks needed, except that those
were applied too late. This commit refactors the code so as relation
skips are checked beforehand, making it safer to avoid too early locks,
for both manual VACUUM with and without a list of relations specified.
An isolation test is added emulating the fact that early locks do not
happen anymore, issuing a WARNING message earlier if the user calling
VACUUM is not a relation owner.
When a partitioned table is listed in a manual VACUUM or ANALYZE
command, its full list of partitions is fetched, all partitions get
added to the list to work on, and then each one of them is processed one
by one, with ownership checks happening at the later phase of
vacuum_rel() or analyze_rel(). Trying to do early ownership checks for
each partition is proving to be tedious as this would result in deadlock
risks with lock upgrades, and skipping all partitions if the listed
partitioned table is not owned would result in a behavior change
compared to how Postgres 10 has implemented vacuum for partitioned
tables. The original problem reported related to early lock queue for
critical relations is fixed anyway, so priority is given to avoiding a
backward-incompatible behavior.
Reported-by: Lloyd Albin, Jeremy Schneider
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed by: Nathan Bossart, Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/152512087100.19803.12733865831237526317@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180812222142.GA6097@paquier.xyz
A caller of TRUNCATE could previously queue for an access exclusive lock
on a relation it may not have permission to truncate, potentially
interfering with users authorized to work on it. This can be very
intrusive depending on the lock attempted to be taken. For example,
pg_authid could be blocked, preventing any authentication attempt to
happen on a PostgreSQL instance.
This commit fixes the case of TRUNCATE so as RangeVarGetRelidExtended is
used with a callback doing the necessary ACL checks at an earlier stage,
avoiding lock queuing issues, so as an immediate failure happens for
unprivileged users instead of waiting on a lock that would not be
taken.
This is rather similar to the type of work done in cbe24a6 for CLUSTER,
and the code of TRUNCATE is this time refactored so as there is no
user-facing changes. As the commit for CLUSTER, no back-patch is done.
Reported-by: Lloyd Albin, Jeremy Schneider
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed by: Nathan Bossart, Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/152512087100.19803.12733865831237526317@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20180806165816.GA19883@paquier.xyz
An update that causes the tuple to be moved to a different partition was
missing out on re-constructing the to-be-updated tuple, based on the latest
tuple in the update chain. Instead, it's simply deleting the latest tuple
and inserting a new tuple in the new partition based on the old tuple.
Commit 2f17844104 didn't consider this case, so some of the updates were
getting lost.
In passing, change the argument order for output parameter in ExecDelete
and add some commentary about it.
Reported-by: Pavan Deolasee
Author: Amit Khandekar, with minor changes by me
Reviewed-by: Dilip Kumar, Amit Kapila and Alvaro Herrera
Backpatch-through: 11
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJ3gD9fRbEzDqdeDq1jxqZUb47kJn+tQ7=Bcgjc8quqKsDViKQ@mail.gmail.com
Up to now, it's been safe for plpgsql to store TOAST pointers in its
variables because the ActiveSnapshot for whatever query called the plpgsql
function will surely protect such TOAST values from being vacuumed away,
even if the owning table rows are committed dead. With the introduction of
procedures, that assumption is no longer good in "non atomic" executions
of plpgsql code. We adopt the slightly brute-force solution of detoasting
all TOAST pointers at the time they are stored into variables, if we're in
a non-atomic context, just in case the owning row goes away.
Some care is needed to avoid long-term memory leaks, since plpgsql tends
to run with CurrentMemoryContext pointing to its call-lifespan context,
but we shouldn't assume that no memory is leaked by heap_tuple_fetch_attr.
In plpgsql proper, we can do the detoasting work in the "eval_mcontext".
Most of the code thrashing here is due to the need to add this capability
to expandedrecord.c as well as plpgsql proper. In expandedrecord.c,
we can't assume that the caller's context is short-lived, so make use of
the short-term sub-context that was already invented for checking domain
constraints. In view of this repurposing, it seems good to rename that
variable and associated code from "domain_check_cxt" to "short_term_cxt".
Peter Eisentraut and Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5AC06865.9050005@anastigmatix.net
The principle behind the locking was not very well thought-out, and not
documented. Add a section in the README to explain how it's supposed to
work, and change the code so that it actually works that way.
This fixes two bugs:
1. If fast update was turned on concurrently, subsequent inserts to the
pending list would not conflict with predicate locks that were acquired
earlier, on entry pages. The included 'predicate-gin-fastupdate' test
demonstrates that. To fix, make all scans acquire a predicate lock on
the metapage. That lock represents a scan of the pending list, whether
or not there is a pending list at the moment. Forget about the
optimization to skip locking/checking for locks, when fastupdate=off.
2. If a scan finds no match, it still needs to lock the entry page. The
point of predicate locks is to lock the gabs between values, whether
or not there is a match. The included 'predicate-gin-nomatch' test
tests that case.
In addition to those two bug fixes, this removes some unnecessary locking,
following the principle laid out in the README. Because all items in
a posting tree have the same key value, a lock on the posting tree root is
enough to cover all the items. (With a very large posting tree, it would
possibly be better to lock the posting tree leaf pages instead, so that a
"skip scan" with a query like "A & B", you could avoid unnecessary conflict
if a new tuple is inserted with A but !B. But let's keep this simple.)
Also, some spelling fixes.
Author: Heikki Linnakangas with some editorization by me
Review: Andrey Borodin, Alexander Korotkov
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0b3ad2c2-2692-62a9-3a04-5724f2af9114@iki.fi
This reverts commits d204ef6377,
83454e3c2b and a few more commits thereafter
(complete list at the end) related to MERGE feature.
While the feature was fully functional, with sufficient test coverage and
necessary documentation, it was felt that some parts of the executor and
parse-analyzer can use a different design and it wasn't possible to do that in
the available time. So it was decided to revert the patch for PG11 and retry
again in the future.
Thanks again to all reviewers and bug reporters.
List of commits reverted, in reverse chronological order:
f1464c5380 Improve parse representation for MERGE
ddb4158579 MERGE syntax diagram correction
530e69e59b Allow cpluspluscheck to pass by renaming variable
01b88b4df5 MERGE minor errata
3af7b2b0d4 MERGE fix variable warning in non-assert builds
a5d86181ec MERGE INSERT allows only one VALUES clause
4b2d44031f MERGE post-commit review
4923550c20 Tab completion for MERGE
aa3faa3c7a WITH support in MERGE
83454e3c2b New files for MERGE
d204ef6377 MERGE SQL Command following SQL:2016
Author: Pavan Deolasee
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier
This reverts the backend sides of commit 1fde38beaa.
I have, at least for now, left the pg_verify_checksums tool in place, as
this tool can be very valuable without the rest of the patch as well,
and since it's a read-only tool that only runs when the cluster is down
it should be a lot safer.
When an update moves a row between partitions (supported since
2f17844104), our normal logic for following update chains in READ
COMMITTED mode doesn't work anymore. Cross partition updates are
modeled as an delete from the old and insert into the new
partition. No ctid chain exists across partitions, and there's no
convenient space to introduce that link.
Not throwing an error in a partitioned context when one would have
been thrown without partitioning is obviously problematic. This commit
introduces infrastructure to detect when a tuple has been moved, not
just plainly deleted. That allows to throw an error when encountering
a deletion that's actually a move, while attempting to following a
ctid chain.
The row deleted as part of a cross partition update is marked by
pointing it's t_ctid to an invalid block, instead of self as a normal
update would. That was deemed to be the least invasive and most
future proof way to represent the knowledge, given how few infomask
bits are there to be recycled (there's also some locking issues with
using infomask bits).
External code following ctid chains should be updated to check for
moved tuples. The most likely consequence of not doing so is a missed
error.
Author: Amul Sul, editorialized by me
Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Pavan Deolasee, Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b95PkwojoYfz0bzXU8OokcTVGzN6vYGCNVUukeUDrnF3dw@mail.gmail.com
Hash index searches acquire predicate locks on the primary
page of a bucket. It acquires a lock on both the old and new buckets
for scans that happen concurrently with page splits. During a bucket
split, a predicate lock is copied from the primary page of an old
bucket to the primary page of a new bucket.
Author: Shubham Barai, Amit Kapila
Reviewed by: Amit Kapila, Alexander Korotkov, Thomas Munro
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALxAEPvNsM2GTiXdRgaaZ1Pjd1bs+sxfFsf7Ytr+iq+5JJoYXA@mail.gmail.com
This makes it possible to turn checksums on in a live cluster, without
the previous need for dump/reload or logical replication (and to turn it
off).
Enabling checkusm starts a background process in the form of a
launcher/worker combination that goes through the entire database and
recalculates checksums on each and every page. Only when all pages have
been checksummed are they fully enabled in the cluster. Any failure of
the process will revert to checksums off and the process has to be
started.
This adds a new WAL record that indicates the state of checksums, so
the process works across replicated clusters.
Authors: Magnus Hagander and Daniel Gustafsson
Review: Tomas Vondra, Michael Banck, Heikki Linnakangas, Andrey Borodin
MERGE performs actions that modify rows in the target table
using a source table or query. MERGE provides a single SQL
statement that can conditionally INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE rows
a task that would other require multiple PL statements.
e.g.
MERGE INTO target AS t
USING source AS s
ON t.tid = s.sid
WHEN MATCHED AND t.balance > s.delta THEN
UPDATE SET balance = t.balance - s.delta
WHEN MATCHED THEN
DELETE
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND s.delta > 0 THEN
INSERT VALUES (s.sid, s.delta)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
DO NOTHING;
MERGE works with regular and partitioned tables, including
column and row security enforcement, as well as support for
row, statement and transition triggers.
MERGE is optimized for OLTP and is parameterizable, though
also useful for large scale ETL/ELT. MERGE is not intended
to be used in preference to existing single SQL commands
for INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE since there is some overhead.
MERGE can be used statically from PL/pgSQL.
MERGE does not yet support inheritance, write rules,
RETURNING clauses, updatable views or foreign tables.
MERGE follows SQL Standard per the most recent SQL:2016.
Includes full tests and documentation, including full
isolation tests to demonstrate the concurrent behavior.
This version written from scratch in 2017 by Simon Riggs,
using docs and tests originally written in 2009. Later work
from Pavan Deolasee has been both complex and deep, leaving
the lead author credit now in his hands.
Extensive discussion of concurrency from Peter Geoghegan,
with thanks for the time and effort contributed.
Various issues reported via sqlsmith by Andreas Seltenreich
Authors: Pavan Deolasee, Simon Riggs
Reviewer: Peter Geoghegan, Amit Langote, Tomas Vondra, Simon Riggs
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.comhttps://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkJdBuxj9PO=2QaO9-3h3xGbQPZ34kJH=HukRekwM-GZg@mail.gmail.com
Predicate locks are used on per page basis only if fastupdate = off, in
opposite case predicate lock on pending list will effectively lock whole index,
to reduce locking overhead, just lock a relation. Entry and posting trees are
essentially B-tree, so locks are acquired on leaf pages only.
Author: Shubham Barai with some editorization by me and Dmitry Ivanov
Review by: Alexander Korotkov, Dmitry Ivanov, Fedor Sigaev
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALxAEPt5sWW+EwTaKUGFL5_XFcZ0MuGBcyJ70oqbWqr42YKR8Q@mail.gmail.com
Add page-level predicate locking, due to gist's code organization, patch seems
close to trivial: add check before page changing, add predicate lock before page
scanning. Although choosing right place to check is not simple: it should not
be called during index build, it should support insertion of new downlink and so
on.
Author: Shubham Barai with editorization by me and Alexander Korotkov
Reviewed by: Alexander Korotkov, Andrey Borodin, me
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALxAEPtdcANpw5ePU3LvnTP8HCENFw6wygupQAyNBgD-sG3h0g@mail.gmail.com
If a query against an inheritance tree runs concurrently with an ALTER
TABLE that's disinheriting one of the tree members, it's possible to get
a "could not find inherited attribute" error because after obtaining lock
on the removed member, make_inh_translation_list sees that its columns
have attinhcount=0 and decides they aren't the columns it's looking for.
An ideal fix, perhaps, would avoid including such a just-removed member
table in the query at all; but there seems no way to accomplish that
without adding expensive catalog rechecks or creating a likelihood of
deadlocks. Instead, let's just drop the check on attinhcount. In this
way, a query that's included a just-disinherited child will still
succeed, which is not a completely unreasonable behavior.
This problem has existed for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. Also add an isolation test verifying related behaviors.
Patch by me; the new isolation test is based on Kyotaro Horiguchi's work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170626.174612.23936762.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Multiple sessions doing CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY simultaneously are
supposed to be able to work in parallel, as evidenced by fixes in commit
c3d09b3bd2 specifically to support this case. In reality, one of the
sessions would be aborted by a misterious "deadlock detected" error.
Jeff Janes diagnosed that this is because of leftover snapshots used for
system catalog scans -- this was broken by 8aa3e47510 keeping track of
(registering) the catalog snapshot. To fix the deadlocks, it's enough
to de-register that snapshot prior to waiting.
Backpatch to 9.4, which introduced MVCC catalog scans.
Include an isolationtester spec that 8 out of 10 times reproduces the
deadlock with the unpatched code for me (Álvaro).
Author: Jeff Janes
Diagnosed-by: Jeff Janes
Reported-by: Jeremy Finzel
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMa1XUhHjCv8Qkx0WOr1Mpm_R4qxN26EibwCrj0Oor2YBUFUTg%40mail.gmail.com
Previously it was possible that a tuple was not pruned during vacuum,
even though its update xmax (i.e. the updating xid in a multixact with
both key share lockers and an updater) was below the cutoff horizon.
As the freezing code assumed, rightly so, that that's not supposed to
happen, xmax would be preserved (as a member of a new multixact or
xmax directly). That causes two problems: For one the tuple is below
the xmin horizon, which can cause problems if the clog is truncated or
once there's an xid wraparound. The bigger problem is that that will
break HOT chains, which in turn can lead two to breakages: First,
failing index lookups, which in turn can e.g lead to constraints being
violated. Second, future hot prunes / vacuums can end up making
invisible tuples visible again. There's other harmful scenarios.
Fix the problem by recognizing that tuples can be DEAD instead of
RECENTLY_DEAD, even if the multixactid has alive members, if the
update_xid is below the xmin horizon. That's safe because newer
versions of the tuple will contain the locking xids.
A followup commit will harden the code somewhat against future similar
bugs and already corrupted data.
Author: Andres Freund, with changes by Alvaro Herrera
Reported-By: Daniel Wood
Analyzed-By: Andres Freund, Alvaro Herrera, Robert Haas, Peter
Geoghegan, Daniel Wood, Yi Wen Wong, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-By: Alvaro Herrera, Robert Haas, Michael Paquier
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/E5711E62-8FDF-4DCA-A888-C200BF6B5742@amazon.comhttps://postgr.es/m/20171102112019.33wb7g5wp4zpjelu@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 9.3-
Hopefully, the additional logging will help avoid confusion that
could otherwise result.
Nathan Bossart, reviewed by Michael Paquier, Fabrízio Mello, and me
It turns out we misdiagnosed what the real problem was. Revert the
previous changes, because they may have worse consequences going
forward. A better fix is forthcoming.
The simplistic test case is kept, though disabled.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171102112019.33wb7g5wp4zpjelu@alap3.anarazel.de
Vacuum calls page-level HOT prune to remove dead HOT tuples before doing
liveness checks (HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum) on the remaining tuples. But
concurrent transaction commit/abort may turn DEAD some of the HOT tuples
that survived the prune, before HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum tests them.
This happens to activate the code that decides to freeze the tuple ...
which resuscitates it, duplicating data.
(This is especially bad if there's any unique constraints, because those
are now internally violated due to the duplicate entries, though you
won't know until you try to REINDEX or dump/restore the table.)
One possible fix would be to simply skip doing anything to the tuple,
and hope that the next HOT prune would remove it. But there is a
problem: if the tuple is older than freeze horizon, this would leave an
unfrozen XID behind, and if no HOT prune happens to clean it up before
the containing pg_clog segment is truncated away, it'd later cause an
error when the XID is looked up.
Fix the problem by having the tuple freezing routines cope with the
situation: don't freeze the tuple (and keep it dead). In the cases that
the XID is older than the freeze age, set the HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED flag
so that there is no need to look up the XID in pg_clog later on.
An isolation test is included, authored by Michael Paquier, loosely
based on Daniel Wood's original reproducer. It only tests one
particular scenario, though, not all the possible ways for this problem
to surface; it be good to have a more reliable way to test this more
fully, but it'd require more work.
In message https://postgr.es/m/20170911140103.5akxptyrwgpc25bw@alvherre.pgsql
I outlined another test case (more closely matching Dan Wood's) that
exposed a few more ways for the problem to occur.
Backpatch all the way back to 9.3, where this problem was introduced by
multixact juggling. In branches 9.3 and 9.4, this includes a backpatch
of commit e5ff9fefcd50 (of 9.5 era), since the original is not
correctable without matching the coding pattern in 9.5 up.
Reported-by: Daniel Wood
Diagnosed-by: Daniel Wood
Reviewed-by: Yi Wen Wong, Michaël Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E5711E62-8FDF-4DCA-A888-C200BF6B5742@amazon.com
In 1753b1b027, the pg_sequence system
catalog was introduced. This made sequence metadata changes
transactional, while the actual sequence values are still behaving
nontransactionally. This requires some refinement in how ALTER
SEQUENCE, which operates on both, locks the sequence and the catalog.
The main problems were:
- Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE causes "tuple concurrently updated" error,
caused by updates to pg_sequence catalog.
- Sequence WAL writes and catalog updates are not protected by same
lock, which could lead to inconsistent recovery order.
- nextval() disregarding uncommitted ALTER SEQUENCE changes.
To fix, nextval() and friends now lock the sequence using
RowExclusiveLock instead of AccessShareLock. ALTER SEQUENCE locks the
sequence using ShareRowExclusiveLock. This means that nextval() and
ALTER SEQUENCE block each other, and ALTER SEQUENCE on the same sequence
blocks itself. (This was already the case previously for the OWNER TO,
RENAME, and SET SCHEMA variants.) Also, rearrange some code so that the
entire AlterSequence is protected by the lock on the sequence.
As an exception, use reduced locking for ALTER SEQUENCE ... RESTART.
Since that is basically a setval(), it does not require the full locking
of other ALTER SEQUENCE actions. So check whether we are only running a
RESTART and run with less locking if so.
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Jason Petersen <jason@citusdata.com>
Reported-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
This improves code coverage and lays a foundation for testing
similar issues in a distributed environment.
Author: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
presence of page pins, which leads to serious estimation errors in the
planner. This particularly affects small heavily-accessed tables,
especially where locking (e.g. from FK constraints) forces frequent
vacuums for mxid cleanup.
Fix by keeping separate track of pages whose live tuples were actually
counted vs. pages that were only scanned for freezing purposes. Thus,
reltuples can only be set to 0 if all pages of the relation were
actually counted.
Backpatch to all supported versions.
Per bug #14057 from Nicolas Baccelli, analyzed by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160331103739.8956.94469@wrigleys.postgresql.org
A transaction that conflicts against itself, for example
INSERT INTO t(pk) VALUES (1),(1) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
should behave the same regardless of isolation level. It certainly
shouldn't throw a serialization error, as retrying will not help.
We got this wrong due to the ON CONFLICT logic not considering the case,
as reported by Jason Dusek.
Core of this patch is by Peter Geoghegan (based on an earlier patch by
Thomas Munro), though I didn't take his proposed code refactoring for fear
that it might have unexpected side-effects. Test cases by Thomas Munro
and myself.
Report: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Related-Discussion: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
INSERT .. ON CONFLICT runs a pre-check of the possible conflicting
constraints before performing the actual speculative insertion. In case
the inserted tuple included TOASTed columns the ON CONFLICT condition
would be handled correctly in case the conflict was caught by the
pre-check, but if two transactions entered the speculative insertion
phase at the same time, one would have to re-try, and the code for
aborting a speculative insertion did not handle deleting the
speculatively inserted TOAST datums correctly.
TOAST deletion would fail with "ERROR: attempted to delete invisible
tuple" as we attempted to remove the TOAST tuples using
simple_heap_delete which reasoned that the given tuples should not be
visible to the command that wrote them.
This commit updates the heap_abort_speculative() function which aborts
the conflicting tuple to use itself, via toast_delete, for deleting
associated TOAST datums. Like before, the inserted toast rows are not
marked as being speculative.
This commit also adds a isolationtester spec test, exercising the
relevant code path. Unfortunately 9.5 cannot handle two waiting
sessions, and thus cannot execute this test.
Reported-By: Viren Negi, Oskari Saarenmaa
Author: Oskari Saarenmaa, edited a bit by me
Bug: #14150
Discussion: <20160519123338.12513.20271@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Backpatch: 9.5, where ON CONFLICT was introduced
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.
While prior to this patch the user-visible effect on the database
of any set of successfully committed serializable transactions was
always consistent with some one-at-a-time order of execution of
those transactions, the presence of declarative constraints could
allow errors to occur which were not possible in any such ordering,
and developers had no good workarounds to prevent user-facing
errors where they were not necessary or desired. This patch adds
a check for serialization failure ahead of duplicate key checking
so that if a developer explicitly (redundantly) checks for the
pre-existing value they will get the desired serialization failure
where the problem is caused by a concurrent serializable
transaction; otherwise they will get a duplicate key error.
While it would be better if the reads performed by the constraints
could count as part of the work of the transaction for
serialization failure checking, and we will hopefully get there
some day, this patch allows a clean and reliable way for developers
to work around the issue. In many cases existing code will already
be doing the right thing for this to "just work".
Author: Thomas Munro, with minor editing of docs by me
Reviewed-by: Marko Tiikkaja, Kevin Grittner
In 0e5680f473, I fixed a bug in heapam that caused spurious deadlocks
when multiple updates concurrently attempted to modify the old version
of an updated tuple whose new version was key-share locked. I proposed
an isolationtester spec file that reproduced the bug, but back then
isolationtester wasn't mature enough to be able to run it. Now that
38f8bdcac4 is in the tree, we can have this spec file too.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141212205254.GC1768%40alvh.no-ip.org
Commit 2834855cb added a not-very-carefully-thought-out isolation test
to check a BRIN index bug fix. The test depended on the availability
of the pageinspect contrib module, which meant it did not work in
several common testing scenarios such as "make check-world". It's not
clear whether we want a core test depending on a contrib module like
that, but in any case, failing to deal with the possibility that the
module isn't present in the installation-under-test is not acceptable.
Remove that test pending some better solution.
For correctness of summarization results, it is critical that the
snapshot used during the summarization scan is able to see all tuples
that are live to all transactions -- including tuples inserted or
deleted by in-progress transactions. Otherwise, it would be possible
for a transaction to insert a tuple, then idle for a long time while a
concurrent transaction executes summarization of the range: this would
result in the inserted value not being considered in the summary.
Previously we were trying to use a MVCC snapshot in conjunction with
adding a "placeholder" tuple in the index: the snapshot would see all
committed tuples, and the placeholder tuple would catch insertions by
any new inserters. The hole is that prior insertions by transactions
that are still in progress by the time the MVCC snapshot was taken were
ignored.
Kevin Grittner reported this as a bogus error message during vacuum with
default transaction isolation mode set to repeatable read (because the
error report mentioned a function name not being invoked during), but
the problem is larger than that.
To fix, tweak IndexBuildHeapRangeScan to have a new mode that behaves
the way we need using SnapshotAny visibility rules. This change
simplifies the BRIN code a bit, mainly by removing large comments that
were mistaken. Instead, rely on the SnapshotAny semantics to provide
what it needs. (The business about a placeholder tuple needs to remain:
that covers the case that a transaction inserts a a tuple in a page that
summarization already scanned.)
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731175700.GX2441@postgresql.org
In passing, remove a couple of unused declarations from brin.h and
reword a comment to be proper English. This part submitted by Kevin
Grittner.
Backpatch to 9.5, where BRIN was introduced.
The newly added ON CONFLICT clause allows to specify an alternative to
raising a unique or exclusion constraint violation error when inserting.
ON CONFLICT refers to constraints that can either be specified using a
inference clause (by specifying the columns of a unique constraint) or
by naming a unique or exclusion constraint. DO NOTHING avoids the
constraint violation, without touching the pre-existing row. DO UPDATE
SET ... [WHERE ...] updates the pre-existing tuple, and has access to
both the tuple proposed for insertion and the existing tuple; the
optional WHERE clause can be used to prevent an update from being
executed. The UPDATE SET and WHERE clauses have access to the tuple
proposed for insertion using the "magic" EXCLUDED alias, and to the
pre-existing tuple using the table name or its alias.
This feature is often referred to as upsert.
This is implemented using a new infrastructure called "speculative
insertion". It is an optimistic variant of regular insertion that first
does a pre-check for existing tuples and then attempts an insert. If a
violating tuple was inserted concurrently, the speculatively inserted
tuple is deleted and a new attempt is made. If the pre-check finds a
matching tuple the alternative DO NOTHING or DO UPDATE action is taken.
If the insertion succeeds without detecting a conflict, the tuple is
deemed inserted.
To handle the possible ambiguity between the excluded alias and a table
named excluded, and for convenience with long relation names, INSERT
INTO now can alias its target table.
Bumps catversion as stored rules change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan, with significant contributions from Heikki
Linnakangas and Andres Freund. Testing infrastructure by Jeff Janes.
Reviewed-By: Heikki Linnakangas, Andres Freund, Robert Haas, Simon Riggs,
Dean Rasheed, Stephen Frost and many others.
Reduce lock levels to ShareRowExclusive for the following SQL
CREATE TRIGGER (but not DROP or ALTER)
ALTER TABLE ENABLE TRIGGER
ALTER TABLE DISABLE TRIGGER
ALTER TABLE … ADD CONSTRAINT FOREIGN KEY
Original work by Simon Riggs, extracted and refreshed by Andreas Karlsson
New test cases added by Andreas Karlsson
Reviewed by Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Michael Paquier and Simon Riggs
Commit 0e5680f473 contained a thinko
mixing LOCKMODE with LockTupleMode. This caused misbehavior in the case
where a tuple is marked with a multixact with at most a FOR SHARE lock,
and another transaction tries to acquire a FOR NO KEY EXCLUSIVE lock;
this case should block but doesn't.
Include a new isolation tester spec file to explicitely try all the
tuple lock combinations; without the fix it shows the problem:
starting permutation: s1_begin s1_lcksvpt s1_tuplock2 s2_tuplock3 s1_commit
step s1_begin: BEGIN;
step s1_lcksvpt: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR KEY SHARE; SAVEPOINT foo;
a
1
step s1_tuplock2: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR SHARE;
a
1
step s2_tuplock3: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR NO KEY UPDATE;
a
1
step s1_commit: COMMIT;
With the fixed code, step s2_tuplock3 blocks until session 1 commits,
which is the correct behavior.
All other cases behave correctly.
Backpatch to 9.3, like the commit that introduced the problem.
This clause changes the behavior of SELECT locking clauses in the
presence of locked rows: instead of causing a process to block waiting
for the locks held by other processes (or raise an error, with NOWAIT),
SKIP LOCKED makes the new reader skip over such rows. While this is not
appropriate behavior for general purposes, there are some cases in which
it is useful, such as queue-like tables.
Catalog version bumped because this patch changes the representation of
stored rules.
Reviewed by Craig Ringer (based on a previous attempt at an
implementation by Simon Riggs, who also provided input on the syntax
used in the current patch), David Rowley, and Álvaro Herrera.
Author: Thomas Munro
Heikki Linnakangas
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera
Andres Freund
Peter Eisentraut
Thomas Munro
Alexander Korotkov
Michael Paquier
Amit Kapila
Teodor Sigaev
Simon Riggs
Magnus Hagander
Robert Haas
Peter Eisentraut
Kevin Grittner
Andrew Gierth