diff options
author | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-05-04 12:15:05 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-05-04 12:15:05 +0000 |
commit | 46651ce6fe013220ed397add242004d764fc0153 (patch) | |
tree | 6e5299f990f88e60174a1d3ae6e48eedd2688b2b /src/test/isolation/specs/lock-update-delete.spec | |
parent | Initial commit. (diff) | |
download | postgresql-14-46651ce6fe013220ed397add242004d764fc0153.tar.xz postgresql-14-46651ce6fe013220ed397add242004d764fc0153.zip |
Adding upstream version 14.5.upstream/14.5upstream
Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'src/test/isolation/specs/lock-update-delete.spec')
-rw-r--r-- | src/test/isolation/specs/lock-update-delete.spec | 61 |
1 files changed, 61 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/test/isolation/specs/lock-update-delete.spec b/src/test/isolation/specs/lock-update-delete.spec new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b9dd7d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/test/isolation/specs/lock-update-delete.spec @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ +# This test verifies behavior when traversing an update chain during +# locking an old version of the tuple. There are three tests here: +# 1. update the tuple, then delete it; a second transaction locks the +# first version. This should raise an error if the DELETE succeeds, +# but be allowed to continue if it aborts. +# 2. Same as (1), except that instead of deleting the tuple, we merely +# update its key. The behavior should be the same as for (1). +# 3. Same as (2), except that we update the tuple without modifying its +# key. In this case, no error should be raised. +# When run in REPEATABLE READ or SERIALIZABLE transaction isolation levels, all +# permutations that commit s2 cause a serializability error; all permutations +# that rollback s2 can get through. +# +# We use an advisory lock (which is locked during s1's setup) to let s2 obtain +# its snapshot early and only allow it to actually traverse the update chain +# when s1 is done creating it. + +setup +{ + DROP TABLE IF EXISTS foo; + CREATE TABLE foo ( + key int PRIMARY KEY, + value int + ); + + INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1, 1); +} + +teardown +{ + DROP TABLE foo; +} + +session s1 +# obtain lock on the tuple, traversing its update chain +step s1l { SELECT * FROM foo WHERE pg_advisory_xact_lock(0) IS NOT NULL AND key = 1 FOR KEY SHARE; } + +session s2 +setup { SELECT pg_advisory_lock(0); } +step s2b { BEGIN; } +step s2u { UPDATE foo SET value = 2 WHERE key = 1; } +step s2_blocker1 { DELETE FROM foo; } +step s2_blocker2 { UPDATE foo SET key = 2 WHERE key = 1; } +step s2_blocker3 { UPDATE foo SET value = 2 WHERE key = 1; } +step s2_unlock { SELECT pg_advisory_unlock(0); } +step s2c { COMMIT; } +step s2r { ROLLBACK; } + +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker1 s2_unlock s2c +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker2 s2_unlock s2c +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker3 s2_unlock s2c +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker1 s2_unlock s2r +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker2 s2_unlock s2r +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker3 s2_unlock s2r + +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker1 s2c s2_unlock +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker2 s2c s2_unlock +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker3 s2c s2_unlock +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker1 s2r s2_unlock +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker2 s2r s2_unlock +permutation s2b s1l s2u s2_blocker3 s2r s2_unlock |