diff options
| author | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2025-01-22 11:58:20 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2025-01-22 11:58:20 -0500 |
| commit | 001c09d8b72ee67ea670a1e9a534fa96948829dd (patch) | |
| tree | 37040417d33d021479cb457a69e9a9fbf297e88b /contrib/lo/expected | |
| parent | 6397819c8af5018663b665dabe2d5bbba56fae9e (diff) | |
Repair incorrect handling of AfterTriggerSharedData.ats_modifiedcols.
This patch fixes two distinct errors that both ultimately trace
to commit 71d60e2aa, which added the ats_modifiedcols field.
The more severe error is that ats_modifiedcols wasn't accounted for
in afterTriggerAddEvent's scanning loop that looks for a pre-existing
duplicate AfterTriggerSharedData. Thus, a new event could be
incorrectly matched to an AfterTriggerSharedData that has a different
value of ats_modifiedcols, resulting in the wrong tg_updatedcols
bitmap getting passed to the trigger whenever it finally gets fired.
We'd not noticed because (a) few triggers consult tg_updatedcols,
and (b) we had no tests exercising a case where such a trigger was
called as an AFTER trigger. In the test case added by this commit,
contrib/lo's trigger fails to remove a large object when expected
because (without this fix) it thinks the LO OID column hasn't changed.
The other problem was introduced by commit ce5aaea8c, which copied the
modified-columns bitmap into trigger-related storage. It made a copy
for every trigger event, whereas what we really want is to make a new
copy only when we make a new AfterTriggerSharedData entry. (We could
imagine adding extra logic to reduce the number of bitmap copies still
more, but it doesn't look worthwhile at the moment.) In a simple test
of an UPDATE of 10000000 rows with a single AFTER trigger, this thinko
roughly tripled the amount of memory consumed by the pending-triggers
data structures, from 160446744 to 480443440 bytes.
Fixing the first problem requires introducing a bms_equal() call into
afterTriggerAddEvent's scanning loop, which is slightly annoying from
a speed perspective. However, getting rid of the excessive bms_copy()
calls from the second problem balances that out; overall speed of
trigger operations is the same or slightly better, in my tests.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3496294.1737501591@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 13
Diffstat (limited to 'contrib/lo/expected')
| -rw-r--r-- | contrib/lo/expected/lo.out | 69 |
1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/contrib/lo/expected/lo.out b/contrib/lo/expected/lo.out index c63e4b1c704..1b6c5a85649 100644 --- a/contrib/lo/expected/lo.out +++ b/contrib/lo/expected/lo.out @@ -47,4 +47,73 @@ SELECT lo_get(43214); DELETE FROM image; SELECT lo_get(43214); ERROR: large object 43214 does not exist +-- Now let's try it with an AFTER trigger +DROP TRIGGER t_raster ON image; +CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER t_raster AFTER UPDATE OR DELETE ON image + DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED + FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE lo_manage(raster); +SELECT lo_create(43223); + lo_create +----------- + 43223 +(1 row) + +SELECT lo_create(43224); + lo_create +----------- + 43224 +(1 row) + +SELECT lo_create(43225); + lo_create +----------- + 43225 +(1 row) + +INSERT INTO image (title, raster) VALUES ('beautiful image', 43223); +SELECT lo_get(43223); + lo_get +-------- + \x +(1 row) + +UPDATE image SET raster = 43224 WHERE title = 'beautiful image'; +SELECT lo_get(43223); -- gone +ERROR: large object 43223 does not exist +SELECT lo_get(43224); + lo_get +-------- + \x +(1 row) + +-- test updating of unrelated column +UPDATE image SET title = 'beautiful picture' WHERE title = 'beautiful image'; +SELECT lo_get(43224); + lo_get +-------- + \x +(1 row) + +-- this case used to be buggy +BEGIN; +UPDATE image SET title = 'beautiful image' WHERE title = 'beautiful picture'; +UPDATE image SET raster = 43225 WHERE title = 'beautiful image'; +SELECT lo_get(43224); + lo_get +-------- + \x +(1 row) + +COMMIT; +SELECT lo_get(43224); -- gone +ERROR: large object 43224 does not exist +SELECT lo_get(43225); + lo_get +-------- + \x +(1 row) + +DELETE FROM image; +SELECT lo_get(43225); -- gone +ERROR: large object 43225 does not exist DROP TABLE image; |
