Skip to content

Commit f893af4

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 The concern has been retracted.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 3383cf0 commit f893af4

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
@@ -8691,8 +8691,7 @@ heap_xlog_visible(XLogReaderState *record)
86918691
/*
86928692
* We don't bump the LSN of the heap page when setting the visibility
86938693
* map bit (unless checksums or wal_hint_bits is enabled, in which
8694-
* case we must), because that would generate an unworkable volume of
8695-
* full-page writes. This exposes us to torn page hazards, but since
8694+
* case we must). This exposes us to torn page hazards, but since
86968695
* we're not inspecting the existing page contents in any way, we
86978696
* don't care.
86988697
*
@@ -8706,6 +8705,9 @@ heap_xlog_visible(XLogReaderState *record)
87068705

87078706
PageSetAllVisible(page);
87088707

8708+
if (XLogHintBitIsNeeded())
8709+
PageSetLSN(page, lsn);
8710+
87098711
MarkBufferDirty(buffer);
87108712
}
87118713
else if (action == BLK_RESTORED)

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)