On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 4:03 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> postgres=# SELECT lp, lp_off, lp_flags, lp_len, t_xmin, t_xmax, t_field3,
> t_ctid, t_infomask2, t_infomask, t_hoff, t_bits, t_oid FROM
> heap_page_items(pg_read_binary_file('/tmp/dump_block.page'));
> lp | lp_off | lp_flags | lp_len | t_xmin | t_xmax | t_field3 | t_ctid
> | t_infomask2 | t_infomask | t_hoff | t_bits | t_oid
> ----+--------+----------+--------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------+-------------+------------+--------+----------------------------------+-------
> 1 | 1320 | 1 | 259 | 926025112 | 0 | 0 | (1,1)
> | 32799 | 10499 | 32 | 11111111111111111111111000100000 |
*** SNIP ***
> 6 | 7464 | 1 | 259 | 926014884 | 926025112 | 0 | (1,1)
> | 49183 | 9475 | 32 | 11111111111111111111111000100000 |
As I understand it from your remarks + gdb output from earlier [1],
the tuple at offset number 6 is the tuple that triggers the suspicious
"goto restart" here. There was a regular UPDATE (not a HOT UPDATE)
that produced a successor version on the same heap page -- which is lp
1. Here are the t_infomask details for both tuples:
lp 6:
HEAP_HASNULL|HEAP_HASVARWIDTH|HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED|HEAP_XMAX_COMMITTED|HEAP_UPDATED
<-- points to (1,1)
lp 1:
HEAP_HASNULL|HEAP_HASVARWIDTH|HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED|HEAP_XMAX_INVALID|HEAP_UPDATED
<-- This is (1,1)
So if lp 1's xmin and lp 6's xmax XID/Xact committed (i.e., if XID
926025112 committed), why shouldn't HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() think
that lp 6 is DEAD (and not RECENTLY_DEAD)? You also say that
vacuumlazy.c's OldestXmin is 926025113, so it is hard to fault HTSV
here. The only way it could be wrong is if the hint bits were somehow
spuriously set, which seems unlikely to me.
[1] https://postgr.es/m/20210608113333.gc16...@telsasoft.com
--
Peter Geoghegan
