• Alvaro Herrera's avatar
    Fix locking a tuple updated by an aborted (sub)transaction · 5c609a74
    Alvaro Herrera authored
    When heap_lock_tuple decides to follow the update chain, it tried to
    also lock any version of the tuple that was created by an update that
    was subsequently rolled back.  This is pointless, since for all intents
    and purposes that tuple exists no more; and moreover it causes
    misbehavior, as reported independently by Marko Tiikkaja and Marti
    Raudsepp: some SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE queries may fail to return
    the tuples, and assertion-enabled builds crash.
    
    Fix by having heap_lock_updated_tuple test the xmin and return success
    immediately if the tuple was created by an aborted transaction.
    
    The condition where tuples become invisible occurs when an updated tuple
    chain is followed by heap_lock_updated_tuple, which reports the problem
    as HeapTupleSelfUpdated to its caller heap_lock_tuple, which in turn
    propagates that code outwards possibly leading the calling code
    (ExecLockRows) to believe that the tuple exists no longer.
    
    Backpatch to 9.3.  Only on 9.5 and newer this leads to a visible
    failure, because of commit 27846f02; before that, heap_lock_tuple
    skips the whole dance when the tuple is already locked by the same
    transaction, because of the ancient HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate behavior.
    Still, the buggy condition may also exist in more convoluted scenarios
    involving concurrent transactions, so it seems safer to fix the bug in
    the old branches too.
    
    Discussion:
    	https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABRT9RC81YUf1=jsmWopcKJEro=VoeG2ou6sPwyOUTx_qteRsg@mail.gmail.com
    	https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/48d3eade-98d3-8b9a-477e-1a8dc32a724d@joh.to
    5c609a74
combocid.sql 2.76 KB