pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Bowen Shi <zxwsbg12138@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:37:40 -0700
Message-ID: <20240625193740.dc.nmisch@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAKRu_Y_NJzF4-8gzTTeaOuUL3CcGoXPjXcAHbTTygT8AyVqag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240415185233.65x57tbdybj4kqbg@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<CAAKRu_bwBN=0Zv-rz4sDCg1J_WYneZpo5b9P4jRvCy=dguVbbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_aUJ-yWy67QnytdNmvKjsAyZtVgnQpsdi-3hk_SbTL3Mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_bXH2g_pchG7rN_4fs-_6_kVbbJ97gYRoN0Zdb9P04Wag@mail.gmail.com>
	<20240518222311.6b@rfd.leadboat.com>
	<CAAKRu_bCimXFX5aDr2wc1Z_6jbBdsO8u4f6w8s1J71+DvSnJRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20240520204818.42.nmisch@google.com>
	<CAAKRu_YZeaS92OY02xFpgsgyLpEZaQ4DA5-s9GX97pp208ex7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_aRuS-twZkrK1bY59H_9NMHWOdg8BnSofo6pfNowv9_Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_Y_NJzF4-8gzTTeaOuUL3CcGoXPjXcAHbTTygT8AyVqag@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:49:50AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 6:51 PM Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I ended up manually backporting the logic from 1ccc1e05ae as opposed
> > to cherry-picking because it relied on a struct introduced in
> > 4e9fc3a9762065.

> Attached is the backport and repros for 15 and 16.

> When this happends, a tuple with an xmax older than OldestXmin but newer

s/happends/happens/

> @@ -700,7 +707,7 @@ heap_prune_chain(Buffer buffer, OffsetNumber rootoffnum, PruneState *prstate)
>  			break;
>  
>  		Assert(ItemIdIsNormal(lp));
> -		Assert(prstate->htsv[offnum] != -1);
> +		Assert(htsv[offnum] != -1);

The master patch removed this assert instead.  Is the back branch non-removal
deliberate?  If so, the patch is ready.  I also confirm your results from your
repro recipe; thanks for including that.





view thread (62+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20240625193740.dc.nmisch@google.com>
Permalink:  ../20240625193740.dc.nmisch@google.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20240625193740.dc.nmisch@google.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: noah@leadboat.com, melanieplageman@gmail.com, zxwsbg12138@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: relfrozenxid may disagree with row XIDs after 1ccc1e05ae
  In-Reply-To: <20240625193740.dc.nmisch@google.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox