On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Yikes. I think you are right. It's kind of scary that the regression >>> tests passed with that mistake. >> >> Can we add a test that exposes that mistake? > > Not sure. We'd have to figure out how to reliably tickle it.
*thinks a bit* When using an MVCC snapshot, we always have first_call = true, so the effect of this mistake was just to disable the opportunistic killing of dead tuples, which doesn't affect correctness. When using a non-MVCC snapshot, we call heap_hot_search_buffer() repeatedly until it returns false. For so long as it returns true, it does not matter how all_dead is set, because index_getnext() will return the tuple without examining all_dead. So only the final call matters. If the final call happens to also be the first call, then all_dead might end up being false when it really ought to be true, but that will once again just miss killing a dead tuple. If the final call isn't the first call, then we've got a problem, because now all_dead will be true when it really ought to be false, and we'll nuke an index tuple that we shouldn't nuke. But if this is happening in the context of CLUSTER, then there might still be no user-visible failure, because we're going to rebuild the indexes anyway. There could be a problem if CLUSTER aborts part-way though. A system catalog might get scanned with SnapshotNow, but to exercise the bug you'd need to HOT update a system catalog and then have the updating transaction commit between the time it sees the first row and the time it sees the second one. So I don't quite see how to construct a test case, ATM. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
