Skip to content

Commit df1aa46

Browse files
committed
Add missing buffer lock acquisition in GetTupleForTrigger().
If we had not been holding buffer pin continuously since the tuple was initially fetched by the UPDATE or DELETE query, it would be possible for VACUUM or a page-prune operation to move the tuple while we're trying to copy it. This would result in a garbage "old" tuple value being passed to an AFTER ROW UPDATE or AFTER ROW DELETE trigger. The preconditions for this are somewhat improbable, and the timing constraints are very tight; so it's not so surprising that this hasn't been reported from the field, even though the bug has been there a long time. Problem found by Andres Freund. Back-patch to all active branches.
1 parent c6a91c9 commit df1aa46

File tree

1 file changed

+12
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+12
-0
lines changed

src/backend/commands/trigger.c

Lines changed: 12 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -2633,6 +2633,16 @@ ltrmark:;
26332633

26342634
buffer = ReadBuffer(relation, ItemPointerGetBlockNumber(tid));
26352635

2636+
/*
2637+
* Although we already know this tuple is valid, we must lock the
2638+
* buffer to ensure that no one has a buffer cleanup lock; otherwise
2639+
* they might move the tuple while we try to copy it. But we can
2640+
* release the lock before actually doing the heap_copytuple call,
2641+
* since holding pin is sufficient to prevent anyone from getting a
2642+
* cleanup lock they don't already hold.
2643+
*/
2644+
LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
2645+
26362646
page = BufferGetPage(buffer);
26372647
lp = PageGetItemId(page, ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber(tid));
26382648

@@ -2642,6 +2652,8 @@ ltrmark:;
26422652
tuple.t_len = ItemIdGetLength(lp);
26432653
tuple.t_self = *tid;
26442654
tuple.t_tableOid = RelationGetRelid(relation);
2655+
2656+
LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK);
26452657
}
26462658

26472659
result = heap_copytuple(&tuple);

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)