Re: Parallel Index Scan vs BTP_DELETED and BTP_HALF_DEAD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Parallel Index Scan vs BTP_DELETED and BTP_HALF_DEAD
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=0HCwEYA4NKOPzz4rRb-qPvmFCRpnTno+vSo4fV54xxjA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Index Scan vs BTP_DELETED and BTP_HALF_DEAD  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good.  I hope that the patch I have posted above is able to resolve
>> this problem.  I am asking as you haven't explicitly mentioned that.
>
> I can confirm that your patch fixes the problem for forward scans.
> That is, I can see it reaching the BTP_DELETED case via an extra LOG
> statement I added, and it worked correctly.  Good.
>
> I don't know how to make it hit the backwards scan case.  I can get a
> backward scan in a worker by changing the query to "select count(*)
> from (select * from jobs where id + 1 > id order by status desc) ss"
> but I suspect that _bt_walk_left() may be hiding deleted pages from us
> so the condition may not be reachable with this technique.

Hmm, no that's not right: clearly it can return half-dead or deleted
pages to the caller.  So I don't know why I never seem to encounter
any, despite concurrent vacuums producing them; maybe something to do
with the interlocking you get with vacuum when you traverse the btree
by walking left -- my btree-fu is not yet strong enough.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: pg_ctl on windows can't open postmaster.pid: Permission denied
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql test layout