public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>
To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Pg Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 17:17:52 +0200
Message-ID: <70574.1778512672@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1KC6CGN-N2bUffSign8Sw4q6=8d3L-Xh4t+50GCdQb6zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA4eK1Jg21ODQ7fS2fvN5W_S5kDRhAP5inj3XMRQaa=s-GbYhw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<cdgw4sbbfcgk6du3iv54r2dgiy4tfywoklbotlmj4irxavdcr3@glxfw5jj277q>
<227677.1775576304@localhost>
<pveffyxhnuurhb44uzqlwo3rkyzorkfh2rot7uwzlf2axhfvbp@7nrs2omysxkc>
<CAA4eK1JhuT5fyTosWDZ+Pgs+j7xEjObTyRMn80uNKgi_ivqHbw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADzfLwWnbKcb3v8sStdgNE=WNc3uUqx5SiS4zftX2UaEfNzG5w@mail.gmail.com>
<85813.1777901089@localhost>
<27869.1777985266@localhost>
<CAA4eK1KC6CGN-N2bUffSign8Sw4q6=8d3L-Xh4t+50GCdQb6zw@mail.gmail.com>
Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 6:17 PM Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I think the problem is that with database-specific snapshot,
> > SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts() returns early, w/o adjusting builder->xmin
> >
> > /*
> > * Database specific transaction info may exist to reach CONSISTENT state
> > * faster, however the code below makes no use of it. Moreover, such
> > * record might cause problems because the following normal (cluster-wide)
> > * record can have lower value of oldestRunningXid. In that case, let's
> > * wait with the cleanup for the next regular cluster-wide record.
> > */
> > if (OidIsValid(running->dbid))
> > return;
> >
> > and thus some transactions whose XID is below running->oldestRunningXid may
> > continue to be incorrectly considered running.
> >
> > I originally thought that this should not happen because such transactions
> > will be added to the builder's array of committed transactions by
> > SnapBuildCommitTxn() anyway. However, I failed to notice that COMMIT record of
> > a transaction listed in the xl_running_xacts WAL record is not guaranteed to
> > follow the xl_running_xacts record in WAL. In other words, even if
> > xl_running_xacts is created before a COMMIT record of the contained
> > transaction, it may end up at higher LSN in WAL. So the cleanup I relied on
> > might not take place.
> >
>
> BTW, is it possible to write a test by using injection_points or via
> manual steps (by using debugger, etc) so that we can more clearly
> understand this problem and proposed fix?
So far I could observe the situation in WAL, but have no idea how it can
happen. For example, transaction 49242 gets committed here
rmgr: Transaction len (rec/tot): 46/ 46, tx: 49242, lsn: 0/18BC28C8, prev
0/18BC2890, desc: COMMIT 2026-05-11 16:38:16.603265 CEST
and then it appears in the 'xids' list of RUNNING_XACTS:
rmgr: Standby len (rec/tot): 106/ 106, tx: 0, lsn:
0/18BC3140, prev 0/18BC3100, desc: RUNNING_XACTS nextXid 49255
latestCompletedXid 49241 oldestRunningXid 49242; 13 xacts: 49248 49249 49246
49243 49252 49251 49244 49245 49242 49250 49253 49254 49247; dbid:5
I thought the situation is quite common (and therefore nothing of
SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts() should be skipped), but when trying to
reproduce the problem, I noticed that LogStandbySnapshot() shouldn't allow
that ordering issue when logical decoding is enabled:
/*
* GetRunningTransactionData() acquired ProcArrayLock, we must release it.
* For Hot Standby this can be done before inserting the WAL record
* because ProcArrayApplyRecoveryInfo() rechecks the commit status using
* the clog. For logical decoding, though, the lock can't be released
* early because the clog might be "in the future" from the POV of the
* historic snapshot. This would allow for situations where we're waiting
* for the end of a transaction listed in the xl_running_xacts record
* which, according to the WAL, has committed before the xl_running_xacts
* record. Fortunately this routine isn't executed frequently, and it's
* only a shared lock.
*/
if (!logical_decoding_enabled)
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
So I don't have the answer right now.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
In-Reply-To: <70574.1778512672@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox