public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]>
To: Amit Langote <[email protected]>
Cc: Nikolay Samokhvalov <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers mailing list <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <[email protected]>
Cc: Kirk Wolak <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PG19 FK fast path: OOB write and missed FK checks during batched
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:38:53 +0530
Message-ID: <CAJTYsWVgHCNDZb2F62F+aELnKJO2BWtHaAXcN-AmgPPP+GAnUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqFBXTTy3KcfGVxqxkhX5zV99R7=s2EwkxMiiWnVbyTpyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM527d9exRCdWrhJOnAxk_vACg7sr_yPoaJp_+uCFY0qP8v=aw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqGTOwRqkgrhqq6-nLyVGfGuAHMfoo+Ob2A4Z98ZkgwCmg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqGWUtxc7KECuT06aYTiwwxGBxM89qY_W64dQjYEoziXog@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqHUz50YqJn4XiNsSLN2c+9eYBy1af=y_dfdJTsz5BmbJg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAM527d_2OpJ3KCOT1QqGh4neCPpgZTgM+VUxTqVgOSweOzTDQw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+HiwqFBXTTy3KcfGVxqxkhX5zV99R7=s2EwkxMiiWnVbyTpyw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 14:02, Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Thanks for checking. I will review them a bit more closely before
> committing by Friday. Other reviews are welcome.
>
Thanks for the patch!
I read through v1-0001 and v1-0002 and tried them locally. I had a couple of
things I wanted to ask about.
1. The per-entry "flushing" flag and test coverage. If I'm reading the two
patches together correctly, with both applied the 64-row re-entry test in
0001
reaches the flush through ri_FastPathEndBatch(), where 0002's cache-wide
ri_fastpath_flushing guard already routes the re-entrant check to the
per-row
path before it gets back into ri_FastPathBatchAdd(). Does that mean the
per-entry flag from 0001 isn't really exercised by that test once 0002 is
in?
As far as I can tell you'd need the flush to fire from ri_FastPathBatchAdd()
itself (a 65th row) to reach it. I tried a 65-row variant (same FK,
re-entrant
DML from the cast during the full-batch flush), including a case where the
re-entrant row was an orphan, and it seemed to do the right thing; the
per-row fallback still raised the violation. Would it be worth switching
the
test to 65 rows, or adding that variant, so the per-entry guard is covered
too?
Or am I missing a path where the committed test already hits it?
2. Resetting ri_fastpath_flushing. I noticed it's cleared only in the
PG_FINALLY of ri_FastPathEndBatch(), which does seem to cover the cases I
could
think of. Since ri_FastPathXactCallback already NULLs ri_fastpath_cache and
clears ri_fastpath_callback_registered at transaction end, I wondered
whether
it might be worth clearing ri_fastpath_flushing there too, just as cheap
insurance against some future path that leaves it set across transactions
though maybe that's unnecessary given the PG_FINALLY.
Other than the above queries, the patch looks good to me.
Regards,
Ayush
view thread (14+ messages) latest in thread
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]
Subject: Re: PG19 FK fast path: OOB write and missed FK checks during batched
In-Reply-To: <CAJTYsWVgHCNDZb2F62F+aELnKJO2BWtHaAXcN-AmgPPP+GAnUQ@mail.gmail.com>
* 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