Hi Michail! Very interesting bug.
> 16 марта 2020 г., в 19:07, Michail Nikolaev <michail.nikol...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > > So, I think right way is to lock all three pages as it is done on the > primary. As far as I can see it is not causes any real performance > regression. It seems to me that it's exactly the same check that I was trying to verify in amcheck patch [0]. But there it was verified inside amcheck, but here it is verified by index scan. Basically, one cannot check that two vice-versa pointers are in agreement without locking both. As a result, they must be changed under lock too. In my view, lock coupling is necessary here. I'm not sure we really need to lock three pages though. Is there a reason why concurrency protocol on standby should not be exactly the same as on primary? Best regards, Andrey Borodin. [0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/24/2254/
