MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <873c33c5-ef9e-41f6-80b2-2f5e11869f1c@garret.ru>
 <CAEze2Wg1Q4gWzm9RZ0yXydm23Mj3iScu8LA__Zz3JJEgpnoGPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <vdoqkxlh3apghactvvfw6ftgeog4hqnc5sinudx2qj4kbxyab4@sk6nalz5xxti>
 <4vhpxjxmwedmnly6tm7i3rwwvqhzax6uf5g7dxvkixj252mbth@3l2h2kpnw4p5> <CAH2-Wzm6gBqc99iEKO6540ynwpjOqWESt5yjg-bHbt0hc8DPsw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-Wzm6gBqc99iEKO6540ynwpjOqWESt5yjg-bHbt0hc8DPsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:59:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH2-WznOtpQ=Pb7cO2ppigR+UDpTTuRUmiND042mwM1P3pdLNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan.
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, 
	Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, 
	Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, 
	Alexander Kuzmenkov <akuzmenkov@timescale.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 
	Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-WznOtpQ%3DPb7cO2ppigR%2BUDpTTuRUmiND042mwM1P3pdLNw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 3:56=E2=80=AFPM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> I took what you wrote, and repurposed it to prove my old theory about
> GiST index-only scans being broken due to the lack of an appropriate
> interlock against concurrent TID recycling. See the attached patch.

BTW, if you change the test case to use the default B-Tree index AM
(by removing "USING GIST"), you'll see that VACUUM blocks on acquiring
a cleanup lock (and so the test just times out). The problem is that
GiST VACUUM just doesn't care about cleanup locks/TID recycling safety
-- though clearly it should.

--=20
Peter Geoghegan