In serializable mode, heap_hot_search_buffer() incorrectly acquired a
predicate lock on the root tuple, not the returned tuple that satisfied
the visibility checks. As explained in README-SSI, the predicate lock does
not need to be copied or extended to other tuple versions, but for that to
work, the correct, visible, tuple version must be locked in the first
place.
The original SSI commit had this bug in it, but it was fixed back in 2013,
in commit 81fbbfe335. But unfortunately, it was reintroduced a few months
later in commit b89e151054. Wising up from that, add a regression test
to cover this, so that it doesn't get reintroduced again. Also, move the
code that sets 't_self', so that it happens at the same time that the
other HeapTuple fields are set, to make it more clear that all the code in
the loop operate on the "current" tuple in the chain, not the root tuple.
Bug spotted by Andres Freund, analysis and original fix by Thomas Munro,
test case and some additional changes to the fix by Heikki Linnakangas.
Backpatch to all supported versions (9.4).
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190731210630.nqhszuktygwftjty%40alap3.anarazel.de
Inheritance trees can include temporary tables if the parent is
permanent, which makes possible the presence of multiple temporary
children from different sessions. Trying to issue a TRUNCATE on the
parent in this scenario causes a failure, so similarly to any other
queries just ignore such cases, which makes TRUNCATE work
transparently.
This makes truncation behave similarly to any other DML query working on
the parent table with queries which need to be issues on children. A
set of isolation tests is added to cover basic cases.
Reported-by: Zhou Digoal
Author: Amit Langote, Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15565-ce67a48d0244436a@postgresql.org
Backpatch-through: 9.4
If the lock wait query failed, isolationtester would report the
PQerrorMessage from some other connection, meaning there would be
no message or an unrelated one. This seems like a pretty unlikely
occurrence, but if it did happen, this bug could make it really
difficult/confusing to figure out what happened. That seems to
justify patching all the way back.
In passing, clean up another place where the "wrong" conn was used
for an error report. That one's not actually buggy because it's
a different alias for the same connection, but it's still confusing
to the reader.
The EvalPlanQual machinery assumes that any initplans (that is,
uncorrelated sub-selects) used during an EPQ recheck would have already
been evaluated during the main query; this is implicit in the fact that
execPlan pointers are not copied into the EPQ estate's es_param_exec_vals.
But it's possible for that assumption to fail, if the initplan is only
reached conditionally. For example, a sub-select inside a CASE expression
could be reached during a recheck when it had not been previously, if the
CASE test depends on a column that was just updated.
This bug is old, appearing to date back to my rewrite of EvalPlanQual in
commit 9f2ee8f28, but was not detected until Kyle Samson reported a case.
To fix, force all not-yet-evaluated initplans used within the EPQ plan
subtree to be evaluated at the start of the recheck, before entering the
EPQ environment. This could be inefficient, if such an initplan is
expensive and goes unused again during the recheck --- but that's piling
one layer of improbability atop another. It doesn't seem worth adding
more complexity to prevent that, at least not in the back branches.
It was convenient to use the new-in-v11 ExecEvalParamExecParams function
to implement this, but I didn't like either its name or the specifics of
its API, so revise that.
Back-patch all the way. Rather than rewrite the patch to avoid depending
on bms_next_member() in the oldest branches, I chose to back-patch that
function into 9.4 and 9.3. (This isn't the first time back-patches have
needed that, and it exhausted my patience.) I also chose to back-patch
some test cases added by commits 71404af2a and 342a1ffa2 into 9.4 and 9.3,
so that the 9.x versions of eval-plan-qual.spec are all the same.
Andrew Gierth diagnosed the problem and contributed the added test cases,
though the actual code changes are by me.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/A033A40A-B234-4324-BE37-272279F7B627@tripadvisor.com
Fix a small number of places that were testing the result of snprintf()
but doing so incorrectly. The right test for buffer overrun, per C99,
is "result >= bufsize" not "result > bufsize". Some places were also
checking for failure with "result == -1", but the standard only says
that a negative value is delivered on failure.
(Note that this only makes these places correct if snprintf() delivers
C99-compliant results. But at least now these places are consistent
with all the other places where we assume that.)
Also, make psql_start_test() and isolation_start_test() check for
buffer overrun while constructing their shell commands. There seems
like a higher risk of overrun, with more severe consequences, here
than there is for the individual file paths that are made elsewhere
in the same functions, so this seemed like a worthwhile change.
Also fix guc.c's do_serialize() to initialize errno = 0 before
calling vsnprintf. In principle, this should be unnecessary because
vsnprintf should have set errno if it returns a failure indication ...
but the other two places this coding pattern is cribbed from don't
assume that, so let's be consistent.
These errors are all very old, so back-patch as appropriate. I think
that only the shell command overrun cases are even theoretically
reachable in practice, but there's not much point in erroneous error
checks.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/17245.1534289329@sss.pgh.pa.us
For years, our makefiles have correctly observed that "there is no correct
way to write a rule that generates two files". However, what we did is to
provide empty rules that "generate" the secondary output files from the
primary one, and that's not right either. Depending on the details of
the creating process, the primary file might end up timestamped later than
one or more secondary files, causing subsequent make runs to consider the
secondary file(s) out of date. That's harmless in a plain build, since
make will just re-execute the empty rule and nothing happens. But it's
fatal in a VPATH build, since make will expect the secondary file to be
rebuilt in the build directory. This would manifest as "file not found"
failures during VPATH builds from tarballs, if we were ever unlucky enough
to ship a tarball with apparently out-of-date secondary files. (It's not
clear whether that has ever actually happened, but it definitely could.)
To ensure that secondary output files have timestamps >= their primary's,
change our makefile convention to be that we provide a "touch $@" action
not an empty rule. Also, make sure that this rule actually gets invoked
during a distprep run, else the hazard remains.
It's been like this a long time, so back-patch to all supported branches.
In HEAD, I skipped the changes in src/backend/catalog/Makefile, because
those rules are due to get replaced soon in the bootstrap data format
patch, and there seems no need to create a merge issue for that patch.
If for some reason we fail to land that patch in v11, we'll need to
back-fill the changes in that one makefile from v10.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18556.1521668179@sss.pgh.pa.us
specscanner.l had a fixed limit of 1024 bytes on the length of
individual SQL stanzas in an isolation test script. People are
starting to run into that, so fix it by making the buffer resizable.
Once we allow this in HEAD, it seems inevitable that somebody will
try to back-patch a test that exceeds the old limit, so back-patch
this change as a preventive measure.
Daniel Gustafsson
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8D628BE4-6606-4FF6-A3FF-8B2B0E9B43D0@yesql.se
An updating query that reads a CTE within an InitPlan or SubPlan could get
incorrect results if it updates rows that are concurrently being modified.
This is caused by CteScanNext supposing that nothing inside its recursive
ExecProcNode call could change which read pointer is selected in the CTE's
shared tuplestore. While that's normally true because of scoping
considerations, it can break down if an EPQ plan tree gets built during the
call, because EvalPlanQualStart builds execution trees for all subplans
whether they're going to be used during the recheck or not. And it seems
like a pretty shaky assumption anyway, so let's just reselect our own read
pointer here.
Per bug #14870 from Andrei Gorita. This has been broken since CTEs were
implemented, so back-patch to all supported branches.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171024155358.1471.82377@wrigleys.postgresql.org
If a query against an inheritance tree runs concurrently with an ALTER
TABLE that's disinheriting one of the tree members, it's possible to get
a "could not find inherited attribute" error because after obtaining lock
on the removed member, make_inh_translation_list sees that its columns
have attinhcount=0 and decides they aren't the columns it's looking for.
An ideal fix, perhaps, would avoid including such a just-removed member
table in the query at all; but there seems no way to accomplish that
without adding expensive catalog rechecks or creating a likelihood of
deadlocks. Instead, let's just drop the check on attinhcount. In this
way, a query that's included a just-disinherited child will still
succeed, which is not a completely unreasonable behavior.
This problem has existed for a long time, so back-patch to all supported
branches. Also add an isolation test verifying related behaviors.
Patch by me; the new isolation test is based on Kyotaro Horiguchi's work.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20170626.174612.23936762.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Multiple sessions doing CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY simultaneously are
supposed to be able to work in parallel, as evidenced by fixes in commit
c3d09b3bd2 specifically to support this case. In reality, one of the
sessions would be aborted by a misterious "deadlock detected" error.
Jeff Janes diagnosed that this is because of leftover snapshots used for
system catalog scans -- this was broken by 8aa3e47510 keeping track of
(registering) the catalog snapshot. To fix the deadlocks, it's enough
to de-register that snapshot prior to waiting.
Backpatch to 9.4, which introduced MVCC catalog scans.
Include an isolationtester spec that 8 out of 10 times reproduces the
deadlock with the unpatched code for me (Álvaro).
Author: Jeff Janes
Diagnosed-by: Jeff Janes
Reported-by: Jeremy Finzel
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAMa1XUhHjCv8Qkx0WOr1Mpm_R4qxN26EibwCrj0Oor2YBUFUTg%40mail.gmail.com
Previously it was possible that a tuple was not pruned during vacuum,
even though its update xmax (i.e. the updating xid in a multixact with
both key share lockers and an updater) was below the cutoff horizon.
As the freezing code assumed, rightly so, that that's not supposed to
happen, xmax would be preserved (as a member of a new multixact or
xmax directly). That causes two problems: For one the tuple is below
the xmin horizon, which can cause problems if the clog is truncated or
once there's an xid wraparound. The bigger problem is that that will
break HOT chains, which in turn can lead two to breakages: First,
failing index lookups, which in turn can e.g lead to constraints being
violated. Second, future hot prunes / vacuums can end up making
invisible tuples visible again. There's other harmful scenarios.
Fix the problem by recognizing that tuples can be DEAD instead of
RECENTLY_DEAD, even if the multixactid has alive members, if the
update_xid is below the xmin horizon. That's safe because newer
versions of the tuple will contain the locking xids.
A followup commit will harden the code somewhat against future similar
bugs and already corrupted data.
Author: Andres Freund, with changes by Alvaro Herrera
Reported-By: Daniel Wood
Analyzed-By: Andres Freund, Alvaro Herrera, Robert Haas, Peter
Geoghegan, Daniel Wood, Yi Wen Wong, Michael Paquier
Reviewed-By: Alvaro Herrera, Robert Haas, Michael Paquier
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/E5711E62-8FDF-4DCA-A888-C200BF6B5742@amazon.comhttps://postgr.es/m/20171102112019.33wb7g5wp4zpjelu@alap3.anarazel.de
Backpatch: 9.3-
It turns out we misdiagnosed what the real problem was. Revert the
previous changes, because they may have worse consequences going
forward. A better fix is forthcoming.
The simplistic test case is kept, though disabled.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171102112019.33wb7g5wp4zpjelu@alap3.anarazel.de
Vacuum calls page-level HOT prune to remove dead HOT tuples before doing
liveness checks (HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum) on the remaining tuples. But
concurrent transaction commit/abort may turn DEAD some of the HOT tuples
that survived the prune, before HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum tests them.
This happens to activate the code that decides to freeze the tuple ...
which resuscitates it, duplicating data.
(This is especially bad if there's any unique constraints, because those
are now internally violated due to the duplicate entries, though you
won't know until you try to REINDEX or dump/restore the table.)
One possible fix would be to simply skip doing anything to the tuple,
and hope that the next HOT prune would remove it. But there is a
problem: if the tuple is older than freeze horizon, this would leave an
unfrozen XID behind, and if no HOT prune happens to clean it up before
the containing pg_clog segment is truncated away, it'd later cause an
error when the XID is looked up.
Fix the problem by having the tuple freezing routines cope with the
situation: don't freeze the tuple (and keep it dead). In the cases that
the XID is older than the freeze age, set the HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED flag
so that there is no need to look up the XID in pg_clog later on.
An isolation test is included, authored by Michael Paquier, loosely
based on Daniel Wood's original reproducer. It only tests one
particular scenario, though, not all the possible ways for this problem
to surface; it be good to have a more reliable way to test this more
fully, but it'd require more work.
In message https://postgr.es/m/20170911140103.5akxptyrwgpc25bw@alvherre.pgsql
I outlined another test case (more closely matching Dan Wood's) that
exposed a few more ways for the problem to occur.
Backpatch all the way back to 9.3, where this problem was introduced by
multixact juggling. In branches 9.3 and 9.4, this includes a backpatch
of commit e5ff9fefcd50 (of 9.5 era), since the original is not
correctable without matching the coding pattern in 9.5 up.
Reported-by: Daniel Wood
Diagnosed-by: Daniel Wood
Reviewed-by: Yi Wen Wong, Michaël Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E5711E62-8FDF-4DCA-A888-C200BF6B5742@amazon.com
When there is both a serialization failure and a unique violation,
throw the former rather than the latter. When initially pushed,
this was viewed as a feature to assist application framework
developers, so that they could more accurately determine when to
retry a failed transaction, but a test case presented by Ian
Jackson has shown that this patch can prevent serialization
anomalies in some cases where a unique violation is caught within a
subtransaction, the work of that subtransaction is discarded, and
no error is thrown. That makes this a bug fix, so it is being
back-patched to all supported branches where it is not already
present (i.e., 9.2 to 9.5).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1481307991-16971-1-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/22607.56276.807567.924144@mariner.uk.xensource.com
A transaction that conflicts against itself, for example
INSERT INTO t(pk) VALUES (1),(1) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
should behave the same regardless of isolation level. It certainly
shouldn't throw a serialization error, as retrying will not help.
We got this wrong due to the ON CONFLICT logic not considering the case,
as reported by Jason Dusek.
Core of this patch is by Peter Geoghegan (based on an earlier patch by
Thomas Munro), though I didn't take his proposed code refactoring for fear
that it might have unexpected side-effects. Test cases by Thomas Munro
and myself.
Report: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Related-Discussion: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
ExecInitCteScan supposed that it didn't have to do anything to the extra
tuplestore read pointer it gets from tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer.
However, it needs this read pointer to be positioned at the start of the
tuplestore, while tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer is actually defined as
cloning the current position of read pointer 0. In normal situations
that accidentally works because we initialize the whole plan tree at once,
before anything gets read. But it fails in an EvalPlanQual recheck, as
illustrated in bug #14328 from Dima Pavlov. To fix, just forcibly rewind
the pointer after tuplestore_alloc_read_pointer. The cost of doing so is
negligible unless the tuplestore is already in TSS_READFILE state, which
wouldn't happen in normal cases. We could consider altering tuplestore's
API to make that case cheaper, but that would make for a more invasive
back-patch and it doesn't seem worth it.
This has been broken probably for as long as we've had CTEs, so back-patch
to all supported branches.
Discussion: <32468.1474548308@sss.pgh.pa.us>
When key-share locking a tuple that has been not-key-updated, and the
update is a committed transaction, in some cases we raised
serializability errors:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update
Because the key-share doesn't conflict with the update, the error is
unnecessary and inconsistent with the case that the update hasn't
committed yet. This causes problems for some usage patterns, even if it
can be claimed that it's sufficient to retry the aborted transaction:
given a steady stream of updating transactions and a long locking
transaction, the long transaction can be starved indefinitely despite
multiple retries.
To fix, we recognize that HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate can return
HeapTupleUpdated when an updating transaction has committed, and that we
need to deal with that case exactly as if it were a non-committed
update: verify whether the two operations conflict, and if not, carry on
normally. If they do conflict, however, there is a difference: in the
HeapTupleBeingUpdated case we can just sleep until the concurrent
transaction is gone, while in the HeapTupleUpdated case this is not
possible and we must raise an error instead.
Per trouble report from Olivier Dony.
In addition to a couple of test cases that verify the changed behavior,
I added a test case to verify the behavior that remains unchanged,
namely that errors are raised when a update that modifies the key is
used. That must still generate serializability errors. One
pre-existing test case changes behavior; per discussion, the new
behavior is actually the desired one.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/560AA479.4080807@odoo.comhttps://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151014164844.3019.25750@wrigleys.postgresql.org
Backpatch to 9.3, where the problem appeared.
In commit afb9249d06, we (probably I) made ExecLockRows assign
null test tuples to all relations of the query while setting up to do an
EvalPlanQual recheck for a newly-updated locked row. This was sheerest
brain fade: we should only set test tuples for relations that are lockable
by the LockRows node, and in particular empty test tuples are only sensible
for inheritance child relations that weren't the source of the current
tuple from their inheritance tree. Setting a null test tuple for an
unrelated table causes it to return NULLs when it should not, as exhibited
in bug #14034 from Bronislav Houdek. To add insult to injury, doing it the
wrong way required two loops where one would suffice; so the corrected code
is even a bit shorter and faster.
Add a regression test case based on his example, and back-patch to 9.5
where the bug was introduced.
Commit 2834855cb added a not-very-carefully-thought-out isolation test
to check a BRIN index bug fix. The test depended on the availability
of the pageinspect contrib module, which meant it did not work in
several common testing scenarios such as "make check-world". It's not
clear whether we want a core test depending on a contrib module like
that, but in any case, failing to deal with the possibility that the
module isn't present in the installation-under-test is not acceptable.
Remove that test pending some better solution.
For correctness of summarization results, it is critical that the
snapshot used during the summarization scan is able to see all tuples
that are live to all transactions -- including tuples inserted or
deleted by in-progress transactions. Otherwise, it would be possible
for a transaction to insert a tuple, then idle for a long time while a
concurrent transaction executes summarization of the range: this would
result in the inserted value not being considered in the summary.
Previously we were trying to use a MVCC snapshot in conjunction with
adding a "placeholder" tuple in the index: the snapshot would see all
committed tuples, and the placeholder tuple would catch insertions by
any new inserters. The hole is that prior insertions by transactions
that are still in progress by the time the MVCC snapshot was taken were
ignored.
Kevin Grittner reported this as a bogus error message during vacuum with
default transaction isolation mode set to repeatable read (because the
error report mentioned a function name not being invoked during), but
the problem is larger than that.
To fix, tweak IndexBuildHeapRangeScan to have a new mode that behaves
the way we need using SnapshotAny visibility rules. This change
simplifies the BRIN code a bit, mainly by removing large comments that
were mistaken. Instead, rely on the SnapshotAny semantics to provide
what it needs. (The business about a placeholder tuple needs to remain:
that covers the case that a transaction inserts a a tuple in a page that
summarization already scanned.)
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150731175700.GX2441@postgresql.org
In passing, remove a couple of unused declarations from brin.h and
reword a comment to be proper English. This part submitted by Kevin
Grittner.
Backpatch to 9.5, where BRIN was introduced.
A Salesforce colleague of mine griped that the regression tests don't
exercise EvalPlanQualFetchRowMarks() and allied routines. Which is
a fair complaint. Add test cases that go through the REFERENCE and COPY
code paths. Unfortunately we don't have sufficient infrastructure right
now to exercise the FDW code path in the isolation tests, but this is
surely better than before.
specparse.y and specscanner.l used "string" as a token name. Now, bison
likes to define each token name as a macro for the token code it assigns,
which means those names are basically off-limits for any other use within
the grammar file or included headers. So names as generic as "string" are
dangerous. This is what was causing the recent failures on protosciurus:
some versions of Solaris' sys/kstat.h use "string" as a field name.
With late-model bison we don't see this problem because the token macros
aren't defined till later (that is why castoroides didn't show the problem
even though it's on the same machine). But protosciurus uses bison 1.875
which defines the token macros up front.
This land mine has been there from day one; we'd have found it sooner
except that protosciurus wasn't trying to run the isolation tests till
recently.
To fix, rename the token to "string_literal" which is hopefully less
likely to collide with names used by system headers. Back-patch to
all branches containing the isolation tests.
The newly added ON CONFLICT clause allows to specify an alternative to
raising a unique or exclusion constraint violation error when inserting.
ON CONFLICT refers to constraints that can either be specified using a
inference clause (by specifying the columns of a unique constraint) or
by naming a unique or exclusion constraint. DO NOTHING avoids the
constraint violation, without touching the pre-existing row. DO UPDATE
SET ... [WHERE ...] updates the pre-existing tuple, and has access to
both the tuple proposed for insertion and the existing tuple; the
optional WHERE clause can be used to prevent an update from being
executed. The UPDATE SET and WHERE clauses have access to the tuple
proposed for insertion using the "magic" EXCLUDED alias, and to the
pre-existing tuple using the table name or its alias.
This feature is often referred to as upsert.
This is implemented using a new infrastructure called "speculative
insertion". It is an optimistic variant of regular insertion that first
does a pre-check for existing tuples and then attempts an insert. If a
violating tuple was inserted concurrently, the speculatively inserted
tuple is deleted and a new attempt is made. If the pre-check finds a
matching tuple the alternative DO NOTHING or DO UPDATE action is taken.
If the insertion succeeds without detecting a conflict, the tuple is
deemed inserted.
To handle the possible ambiguity between the excluded alias and a table
named excluded, and for convenience with long relation names, INSERT
INTO now can alias its target table.
Bumps catversion as stored rules change.
Author: Peter Geoghegan, with significant contributions from Heikki
Linnakangas and Andres Freund. Testing infrastructure by Jeff Janes.
Reviewed-By: Heikki Linnakangas, Andres Freund, Robert Haas, Simon Riggs,
Dean Rasheed, Stephen Frost and many others.
Before, make check-world would create a new temporary installation for
each test suite, which is slow and wasteful. Instead, we now create one
test installation that is used by all test suites that are part of a
make run.
The management of the temporary installation is removed from pg_regress
and handled in the makefiles. This allows for better control, and
unifies the code with that of test suites not run through pg_regress.
review and msvc support by Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
more review by Fabien Coelho <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Reduce lock levels to ShareRowExclusive for the following SQL
CREATE TRIGGER (but not DROP or ALTER)
ALTER TABLE ENABLE TRIGGER
ALTER TABLE DISABLE TRIGGER
ALTER TABLE … ADD CONSTRAINT FOREIGN KEY
Original work by Simon Riggs, extracted and refreshed by Andreas Karlsson
New test cases added by Andreas Karlsson
Reviewed by Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Michael Paquier and Simon Riggs
Up to now, the "child" executor state trees generated for EvalPlanQual
rechecks have simply shared the ResultRelInfo arrays used for the original
execution tree. However, this leads to dangling-pointer problems, because
ExecInitModifyTable() is all too willing to scribble on some fields of the
ResultRelInfo(s) even when it's being run in one of those child trees.
This trashes those fields from the perspective of the parent tree, because
even if the generated subtree is logically identical to what was in use in
the parent, it's in a memory context that will go away when we're done
with the child state tree.
We do however want to share information in the direction from the parent
down to the children; in particular, fields such as es_instrument *must*
be shared or we'll lose the stats arising from execution of the children.
So the simplest fix is to make a copy of the parent's ResultRelInfo array,
but not copy any fields back at end of child execution.
Per report from Manuel Kniep. The added isolation test is based on his
example. In an unpatched memory-clobber-enabled build it will reliably
fail with "ctid is NULL" errors in all branches back to 9.1, as a
consequence of junkfilter->jf_junkAttNo being overwritten with $7f7f.
This test cannot be run as-is before that for lack of WITH syntax; but
I have no doubt that some variant of this problem can arise in older
branches, so apply the code change all the way back.
Commit 0e5680f473 contained a thinko
mixing LOCKMODE with LockTupleMode. This caused misbehavior in the case
where a tuple is marked with a multixact with at most a FOR SHARE lock,
and another transaction tries to acquire a FOR NO KEY EXCLUSIVE lock;
this case should block but doesn't.
Include a new isolation tester spec file to explicitely try all the
tuple lock combinations; without the fix it shows the problem:
starting permutation: s1_begin s1_lcksvpt s1_tuplock2 s2_tuplock3 s1_commit
step s1_begin: BEGIN;
step s1_lcksvpt: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR KEY SHARE; SAVEPOINT foo;
a
1
step s1_tuplock2: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR SHARE;
a
1
step s2_tuplock3: SELECT * FROM multixact_conflict FOR NO KEY UPDATE;
a
1
step s1_commit: COMMIT;
With the fixed code, step s2_tuplock3 blocks until session 1 commits,
which is the correct behavior.
All other cases behave correctly.
Backpatch to 9.3, like the commit that introduced the problem.
In READ COMMITTED mode, if a SELECT FOR UPDATE discovers it has to redo
WHERE-clause checking on rows that have been updated since the SELECT's
snapshot, it invokes EvalPlanQual processing to do that. If this first
occurs within a non-first child table of an inheritance tree, the previous
coding could accidentally re-return a matching row from an earlier,
already-scanned child table. (And, to add insult to injury, I think this
could make it miss returning a row that should have been returned, if the
updated row that this happens on should still have passed the WHERE qual.)
Per report from Kyotaro Horiguchi; the added isolation test is based on his
test case.
This has been broken for quite awhile, so back-patch to all supported
branches.
This clause changes the behavior of SELECT locking clauses in the
presence of locked rows: instead of causing a process to block waiting
for the locks held by other processes (or raise an error, with NOWAIT),
SKIP LOCKED makes the new reader skip over such rows. While this is not
appropriate behavior for general purposes, there are some cases in which
it is useful, such as queue-like tables.
Catalog version bumped because this patch changes the representation of
stored rules.
Reviewed by Craig Ringer (based on a previous attempt at an
implementation by Simon Riggs, who also provided input on the syntax
used in the current patch), David Rowley, and Álvaro Herrera.
Author: Thomas Munro
If SELECT FOR UPDATE NOWAIT tries to lock a tuple that is concurrently
being updated, it might fail to honor its NOWAIT specification and block
instead of raising an error.
Fix by adding a no-wait flag to EvalPlanQualFetch which it can pass down
to heap_lock_tuple; also use it in EvalPlanQualFetch itself to avoid
blocking while waiting for a concurrent transaction.
Authors: Craig Ringer and Thomas Munro, tweaked by Álvaro
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51FB6703.9090801@2ndquadrant.com
Per Thomas Munro in the course of his SKIP LOCKED feature submission,
who also provided one of the isolation test specs.
Backpatch to 9.4, because that's as far back as it applies without
conflicts (although the bug goes all the way back). To that branch also
backpatch Thomas Munro's new NOWAIT test cases, committed in master by
Heikki as commit 9ee16b49f0 .
In support of this, have the MSVC build follow GNU make in preferring
GNUmakefile over Makefile when a directory contains both.
Michael Paquier, reviewed by MauMau.
This reverts commit 45b7abe59e.
It turns out that the %name-prefix syntax without "=" does not work
at all in pre-2.4 Bison. We are not prepared to make such a large
jump in minimum required Bison version just to suppress a warning
message in a version hardly any developers are using yet.
When 3.0 gets more popular, we'll figure out a way to deal with this.
In the meantime, BISONFLAGS=-Wno-deprecated is recommendable for
anyone using 3.0 who doesn't want to see the warning.
%name-prefix doesn't use an "=" sign according to the Bison docs, but it
silently accepted one anyway, until Bison 3.0. This was originally a
typo of mine in commit 012abebab1, and we
seem to have slavishly copied the error into all the other grammar files.
Per report from Vik Fearing; analysis by Peter Eisentraut.
Back-patch to all active branches, since somebody might try to build
a back branch with up-to-date tools.
It's easy to forget using SYSTEMQUOTEs when constructing command strings
for system() or popen(). Even if we fix all the places missing it now, it is
bound to be forgotten again in the future. Introduce wrapper functions that
do the the extra quoting for you, and get rid of SYSTEMQUOTEs in all the
callers.
We previosly used SYSTEMQUOTEs in all the hard-coded command strings, and
this doesn't change the behavior of those. But user-supplied commands, like
archive_command, restore_command, COPY TO/FROM PROGRAM calls, as well as
pgbench's \shell, will now gain an extra pair of quotes. That is desirable,
but if you have existing scripts or config files that include an extra
pair of quotes, those might need to be adjusted.
Reviewed by Amit Kapila and Tom Lane
VALIDATE CONSTRAINT
CLUSTER ON
SET WITHOUT CLUSTER
ALTER COLUMN SET STATISTICS
ALTER COLUMN SET ()
ALTER COLUMN RESET ()
All other sub-commands use AccessExclusiveLock
Simon Riggs and Noah Misch
Reviews by Robert Haas and Andres Freund
We used to have externs for getopt() and its API variables scattered
all over the place. Now that we find we're going to need to tweak the
variable declarations for Cygwin, it seems like a good idea to have
just one place to tweak.
In this commit, the variables are declared "#ifndef HAVE_GETOPT_H".
That may or may not work everywhere, but we'll soon find out.
Andres Freund
This ensures that all stdout output is flushed immediately, to match
stderr. This eliminates the need for fflush(stdout) calls sprinkled all
over the place.
Per Daniel Wood in message 519A79C6.90308@salesforce.com
If a tuple was locked by transaction A, and transaction B updated it,
the new version of the tuple created by B would be locked by A, yet
visible only to B; due to an oversight in HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate, the
lock held by A wouldn't get checked if transaction B later deleted (or
key-updated) the new version of the tuple. This might cause referential
integrity checks to give false positives (that is, allow deletes that
should have been rejected).
This is an easy oversight to have made, because prior to improved tuple
locks in commit 0ac5ad5134 it wasn't possible to have tuples created by
our own transaction that were also locked by remote transactions, and so
locks weren't even considered in that code path.
It is recommended that foreign keys be rechecked manually in bulk after
installing this update, in case some referenced rows are missing with
some referencing row remaining.
Per bug reported by Daniel Wood in
CAPweHKe5QQ1747X2c0tA=5zf4YnS2xcvGf13Opd-1Mq24rF1cQ@mail.gmail.com
In 247c76a989, I added some code to do fine-grained checking of
MultiXact status of locking/updating transactions when traversing an
update chain. There was a thinko in that patch which would have the
traversing abort, that is return HeapTupleUpdated, when the other
transaction is a committed lock-only. In this case we should ignore it
and return success instead. Of course, in the case where there is a
committed update, HeapTupleUpdated is the correct return value.
A user-visible symptom of this bug is that in REPEATABLE READ and
SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation modes spurious serializability errors
can occur:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to concurrent update
In order for this to happen, there needs to be a tuple that's key-share-
locked and also updated, and the update must abort; a subsequent
transaction trying to acquire a new lock on that tuple would abort with
the above error. The reason is that the initial FOR KEY SHARE is seen
as committed by the new locking transaction, which triggers this bug.
(If the UPDATE commits, then the serialization error is correctly
reported.)
When running a query in READ COMMITTED mode, what happens is that the
locking is aborted by the HeapTupleUpdated return value, then
EvalPlanQual fetches the newest version of the tuple, which is then the
only version that gets locked. (The second time the tuple is checked
there is no misbehavior on the committed lock-only, because it's not
checked by the code that traverses update chains; so no bug.) Only the
newest version of the tuple is locked, not older ones, but this is
harmless.
The isolation test added by this commit illustrates the desired
behavior, including the proper serialization errors that get thrown.
Backpatch to 9.3.
HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate can very easily "forget" tuple locks while
checking the contents of a multixact and finding it contains an aborted
update, by setting the HEAP_XMAX_INVALID bit. This would lead to
concurrent transactions not noticing any previous locks held by
transactions that might still be running, and thus being able to acquire
subsequent locks they wouldn't be normally able to acquire.
This bug was introduced in commit 1ce150b7bb; backpatch this fix to 9.3,
like that commit.
This change reverts the change to the delete-abort-savept isolation test
in 1ce150b7bb, because that behavior change was caused by this bug.
Noticed by Andres Freund while investigating a different issue reported
by Noah Misch.
