Raise error when affecting tuple moved into different partition.

When an update moves a row between partitions (supported since
2f178441044b), our normal logic for following update chains in READ
COMMITTED mode doesn't work anymore. Cross partition updates are
modeled as an delete from the old and insert into the new
partition. No ctid chain exists across partitions, and there's no
convenient space to introduce that link.

Not throwing an error in a partitioned context when one would have
been thrown without partitioning is obviously problematic. This commit
introduces infrastructure to detect when a tuple has been moved, not
just plainly deleted. That allows to throw an error when encountering
a deletion that's actually a move, while attempting to following a
ctid chain.

The row deleted as part of a cross partition update is marked by
pointing it's t_ctid to an invalid block, instead of self as a normal
update would.  That was deemed to be the least invasive and most
future proof way to represent the knowledge, given how few infomask
bits are there to be recycled (there's also some locking issues with
using infomask bits).

External code following ctid chains should be updated to check for
moved tuples. The most likely consequence of not doing so is a missed
error.

Author: Amul Sul, editorialized by me
Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Pavan Deolasee, Andres Freund, Robert Haas
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAAJ_b95PkwojoYfz0bzXU8OokcTVGzN6vYGCNVUukeUDrnF3dw@mail.gmail.com

1 files changed, 23 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
index bf4c2bf6082..f47649d0517 100644
--- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
+++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c
@@ -645,7 +645,8 @@ ExecDelete(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
 		   bool processReturning,
 		   HeapUpdateFailureData *hufdp,
 		   MergeActionState *actionState,
-		   bool canSetTag)
+		   bool canSetTag,
+		   bool changingPart)
 {
 	ResultRelInfo *resultRelInfo;
 	Relation	resultRelationDesc;
@@ -744,7 +745,8 @@ ldelete:;
 							 estate->es_output_cid,
 							 estate->es_crosscheck_snapshot,
 							 true /* wait for commit */ ,
-							 &hufd);
+							 &hufd,
+							 changingPart);
 
 		/*
 		 * Copy the necessary information, if the caller has asked for it. We
@@ -803,6 +805,10 @@ ldelete:;
 					ereport(ERROR,
 							(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 							 errmsg("could not serialize access due to concurrent update")));
+				if (ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions(&hufd.ctid))
+					ereport(ERROR,
+							(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
+							 errmsg("tuple to be deleted was already moved to another partition due to concurrent update")));
 
 				if (!ItemPointerEquals(tupleid, &hufd.ctid))
 				{
@@ -1157,7 +1163,7 @@ lreplace:;
 			 */
 			ExecDelete(mtstate, tupleid, oldtuple, planSlot, epqstate,
 					   estate, &tuple_deleted, false, hufdp, NULL,
-					   false);
+					   false /* canSetTag */, true /* changingPart */);
 
 			/*
 			 * For some reason if DELETE didn't happen (e.g. trigger prevented
@@ -1333,6 +1339,10 @@ lreplace:;
 					ereport(ERROR,
 							(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 							 errmsg("could not serialize access due to concurrent update")));
+				if (ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions(&hufd.ctid))
+					ereport(ERROR,
+							(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
+							 errmsg("tuple to be updated was already moved to another partition due to concurrent update")));
 
 				if (!ItemPointerEquals(tupleid, &hufd.ctid))
 				{
@@ -1523,6 +1533,14 @@ ExecOnConflictUpdate(ModifyTableState *mtstate,
 						 errmsg("could not serialize access due to concurrent update")));
 
 			/*
+			 * As long as we don't support an UPDATE of INSERT ON CONFLICT for
+			 * a partitioned table we shouldn't reach to a case where tuple to
+			 * be lock is moved to another partition due to concurrent update
+			 * of the partition key.
+			 */
+			Assert(!ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions(&hufd.ctid));
+
+			/*
 			 * Tell caller to try again from the very start.
 			 *
 			 * It does not make sense to use the usual EvalPlanQual() style
@@ -2274,7 +2292,8 @@ ExecModifyTable(PlanState *pstate)
 			case CMD_DELETE:
 				slot = ExecDelete(node, tupleid, oldtuple, planSlot,
 								  &node->mt_epqstate, estate,
-								  NULL, true, NULL, NULL, node->canSetTag);
+								  NULL, true, NULL, NULL, node->canSetTag,
+								  false /* changingPart */);
 				break;
 			default:
 				elog(ERROR, "unknown operation");