The test was supposed to reproduce the bug fixed in commit 66fa176cc8,
i.e. that the clearing of the VM bit was not replayed in the
pageserver on HEAP_LOCK records. But it was broken in many ways and
failed to reproduce the original problem if you reverted the fix:
- The comparison of XIDs was broken. The test read the XID in to a
variable in python, but it was treated as a string rather than an
integer. As a result, e.g. "999" > "1000".
- The test accessed the locked tuple too early, in the loop. Accessing
it early, before the pg_xact page had been removed, set the hint bits.
That masked the problem on subsequent accesses.
- The on-demand SLRU download that was introduced in commit 9a9d9beaee
hid the issue. Even though an SLRU segment was removed by Postgres,
when it later tried to access it, it could still download it from
the pageserver. To ensure that doesn't happen, shorten the GC period
and compact and GC aggressively in the test.
I also added a more direct check that the VM page is updated, using
the get_page_at_lsn() debugging function. Right after locking the row,
we now fetch the VM page from pageserver and directly compare it with
the VM page in the page cache. They should match. That assertion is
more robust to things like on-demand SLRU download that could mask the
bug.
update_next_xid() doesn't have any special treatment for the invalid or
other special XIDs, so it will treat InvalidTransactionId (0) as a
regular XID. If old nextXid is smaller than 2^31, 0 will look like a
very old XID, and nothing happens. But if nextXid is greater than 2^31 0
will look like a very new XID, and update_next_xid() will incorrectly
bump up nextXID.
## Problem
VM should be updated if XLH_LOCK_ALL_FROZEN_CLEARED flags is set in
XLOG_HEAP_LOCK,XLOG_HEAP_2_LOCK_UPDATED WAL records
## Summary of changes
Add handling of this records in walingest.rs
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code.
- [ ] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.
- [ ] Do we need to implement analytics? if so did you add the relevant
metrics to the dashboard?
- [ ] If this PR requires public announcement, mark it with
/release-notes label and add several sentences in this section.
## Checklist before merging
- [ ] Do not forget to reformat commit message to not include the above
checklist
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@neon.tech>
## Problem
See https://neondb.slack.com/archives/C05L7D1JAUS/p1694614585955029https://www.notion.so/neondatabase/Duplicate-key-issue-651627ce843c45188fbdcb2d30fd2178
## Summary of changes
Swap old/new block references
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code.
- [ ] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.
- [ ] Do we need to implement analytics? if so did you add the relevant
metrics to the dashboard?
- [ ] If this PR requires public announcement, mark it with
/release-notes label and add several sentences in this section.
## Checklist before merging
- [ ] Do not forget to reformat commit message to not include the above
checklist
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@neon.tech>
Co-authored-by: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@neon.tech>
We use the term "endpoint" in for compute Postgres nodes in the web UI
and user-facing documentation now. Adjust the nomenclature in the code.
This changes the name of the "neon_local pg" command to "neon_local
endpoint". Also adjust names of classes, variables etc. in the python
tests accordingly.
This also changes the directory structure so that endpoints are now
stored in:
.neon/endpoints/<endpoint id>
instead of:
.neon/pgdatadirs/tenants/<tenant_id>/<endpoint (node) name>
The tenant ID is no longer part of the path. That means that you
cannot have two endpoints with the same name/ID in two different
tenants anymore. That's consistent with how we treat endpoints in the
real control plane and proxy: the endpoint ID must be globally unique.
Merge batch_others and batch_pg_regress. The original idea was to
split all the python tests into multiple "batches" and run each batch
in parallel as a separate CI job. However, the batch_pg_regress batch
was pretty short compared to all the tests in batch_others. We could
split batch_others into multiple batches, but it actually seems better
to just treat them as one big pool of tests and use pytest's handle
the parallelism on its own. If we need to split them across multiple
nodes in the future, we could use pytest-shard or something else,
instead of managing the batches ourselves.
Merge test_neon_regress.py, test_pg_regress.py and test_isolation.py
into one file, test_pg_regress.py. Seems more clear to group all
pg_regress-based tests into one file, now that they would all be in
the same directory.
