This problem has been introduced by commit 272248a0c1 where we started
assigning the subtransactions to the top-level transaction when we mark
both the top-level transaction and its subtransactions as containing
catalog changes. After we assign subtransactions to the top-level
transaction, we were not allowed to execute any invalidations associated
with it when we decide to skip the transaction.
The reason to assign the subtransactions to the top-level transaction was
to avoid the assertion failure in AssertTXNLsnOrder() as they have the
same LSN when we sometimes start accumulating transaction changes for
partial transactions after the restart. Now that with commit 64ff0fe4e8,
we skip this assertion check until we reach the LSN at which we start
decoding the contents of the transaction, so, there is no reason for such
an assignment anymore.
The assignment change was introduced in 15 and prior versions but this bug
doesn't exist in branches prior to 14 since we don't add invalidation
messages to subtransactions. We decided to backpatch through 11 for
consistency but not for 10 since its final release is near.
Reported-by: Kuroda Hayato
Author: Masahiko Sawada
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 11
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/TYAPR01MB58660803BCAA7849C8584AA4F57E9%40TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/a89b46b6-0239-2fd5-71a9-b19b1f7a7145%40enterprisedb.com
When the logical decoding restarts from NEW_CID, since there is no
association between the top transaction and its subtransaction, both are
created as top transactions and have the same LSN. This caused the
assertion failure in AssertTXNLsnOrder().
This patch skips the assertion check until we reach the LSN at which we
start decoding the contents of the transaction, specifically
start_decoding_at LSN in SnapBuild. This is okay because we don't
guarantee to make the association between top transaction and
subtransaction until we try to decode the actual contents of transaction.
The ordering of the records prior to the start_decoding_at LSN should have
been checked before the restart.
The other assertion failure is due to the reason that we forgot to track
that we have considered top-level transaction id in the list of catalog
changing transactions that were committed when one of its subtransactions
is marked as containing catalog change.
Reported-by: Tomas Vondra, Osumi Takamichi
Author: Masahiko Sawada, Kuroda Hayato
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Dilip Kumar, Kuroda Hayato, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Masahiko Sawada
Backpatch-through: 10
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/a89b46b6-0239-2fd5-71a9-b19b1f7a7145%40enterprisedb.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/TYCPR01MB83733C6CEAE47D0280814D5AED7A9%40TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Previously, we relied on HEAP2_NEW_CID records and XACT_INVALIDATION
records to know if the transaction has modified the catalog, and that
information is not serialized to snapshot. Therefore, after the restart,
if the logical decoding decodes only the commit record of the transaction
that has actually modified a catalog, we will miss adding its XID to the
snapshot. Thus, we will end up looking at catalogs with the wrong
snapshot.
To fix this problem, this changes the snapshot builder so that it
remembers the last-running-xacts list of the decoded RUNNING_XACTS record
after restoring the previously serialized snapshot. Then, we mark the
transaction as containing catalog changes if it's in the list of initial
running transactions and its commit record has XACT_XINFO_HAS_INVALS. To
avoid ABI breakage, we store the array of the initial running transactions
in the static variables InitialRunningXacts and NInitialRunningXacts,
instead of storing those in SnapBuild or ReorderBuffer.
This approach has a false positive; we could end up adding the transaction
that didn't change catalog to the snapshot since we cannot distinguish
whether the transaction has catalog changes only by checking the COMMIT
record. It doesn't have the information on which (sub) transaction has
catalog changes, and XACT_XINFO_HAS_INVALS doesn't necessarily indicate
that the transaction has catalog change. But that won't be a problem since
we use snapshot built during decoding only to read system catalogs.
On the master branch, we took a more future-proof approach by writing
catalog modifying transactions to the serialized snapshot which avoids the
above false positive. But we cannot backpatch it because of a change in
the SnapBuild.
Reported-by: Mike Oh
Author: Masahiko Sawada
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Shi yu, Takamichi Osumi, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Bertrand Drouvot, Ahsan Hadi
Backpatch-through: 10
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/81D0D8B0-E7C4-4999-B616-1E5004DBDCD2%40amazon.com
Amit Kapila