Skip to content

Commit 7bf713d

Browse files
committed
Fix theoretical torn page hazard.
The original report was concerned with a possible inconsistency between the heap and the visibility map, which I was unable to confirm. The concern has been retracted. However, there did seem to be a torn page hazard when using checksums. By not setting the heap page LSN during redo, the protections of minRecoveryPoint were bypassed. Fixed, along with a misleading comment. It may have been impossible to hit this problem in practice, because it would require a page tear between the checksum and the flags, so I am marking this as a theoretical risk. But, as discussed, it did violate expectations about the page LSN, so it may have other consequences. Backpatch to all supported versions. Reported-by: Konstantin Knizhnik Reviewed-by: Konstantin Knizhnik Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/fed17dac-8cb8-4f5b-d462-1bb4908c029e@garret.ru Backpatch-through: 11
1 parent 9c1a4fc commit 7bf713d

File tree

1 file changed

+4
-2
lines changed

1 file changed

+4
-2
lines changed

src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c

Lines changed: 4 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -8823,8 +8823,7 @@ heap_xlog_visible(XLogReaderState *record)
88238823
/*
88248824
* We don't bump the LSN of the heap page when setting the visibility
88258825
* map bit (unless checksums or wal_hint_bits is enabled, in which
8826-
* case we must), because that would generate an unworkable volume of
8827-
* full-page writes. This exposes us to torn page hazards, but since
8826+
* case we must). This exposes us to torn page hazards, but since
88288827
* we're not inspecting the existing page contents in any way, we
88298828
* don't care.
88308829
*
@@ -8838,6 +8837,9 @@ heap_xlog_visible(XLogReaderState *record)
88388837

88398838
PageSetAllVisible(page);
88408839

8840+
if (XLogHintBitIsNeeded())
8841+
PageSetLSN(page, lsn);
8842+
88418843
MarkBufferDirty(buffer);
88428844
}
88438845
else if (action == BLK_RESTORED)

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)