Fix incorrect checking of deferred exclusion constraint after a HOT update.

If a row that potentially violates a deferred exclusion constraint is
HOT-updated later in the same transaction, the exclusion constraint would
be reported as violated when the check finally occurs, even if the row(s)
the new row originally conflicted with have since been removed.  This
happened because the wrong TID was passed to check_exclusion_constraint(),
causing the live HOT-updated row to be seen as a conflicting row rather
than recognized as the row-under-test.

Per bug #13148 from Evan Martin.  It's been broken since exclusion
constraints were invented, so back-patch to all supported branches.

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/constraint.c b/src/backend/commands/constraint.c
index b0cad4634b235a01dcb6501f102d177fde5b3d5a..f99826939c49f8a0c55a2281645e7579b13912e6 100644 (file)
--- a/src/backend/commands/constraint.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/constraint.c
@@ -89,9 +89,10 @@ unique_key_recheck(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
         * because this trigger gets queued only in response to index insertions;
         * which means it does not get queued for HOT updates.  The row we are
         * called for might now be dead, but have a live HOT child, in which case
-        * we still need to make the check.  Therefore we have to use
-        * heap_hot_search, not just HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility as is done in
-        * the comparable test in RI_FKey_check.
+        * we still need to make the check --- effectively, we're applying the
+        * check against the live child row, although we can use the values from
+        * this row since by definition all columns of interest to us are the
+        * same.
         *
         * This might look like just an optimization, because the index AM will
         * make this identical test before throwing an error.  But it's actually
@@ -159,7 +160,9 @@ unique_key_recheck(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
        {
                /*
                 * Note: this is not a real insert; it is a check that the index entry
-                * that has already been inserted is unique.
+                * that has already been inserted is unique.  Passing t_self is
+                * correct even if t_self is now dead, because that is the TID the
+                * index will know about.
                 */
                index_insert(indexRel, values, isnull, &(new_row->t_self),
                                         trigdata->tg_relation, UNIQUE_CHECK_EXISTING);
@@ -168,10 +171,12 @@ unique_key_recheck(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
        {
                /*
                 * For exclusion constraints we just do the normal check, but now it's
-                * okay to throw error.
+                * okay to throw error.  In the HOT-update case, we must use the live
+                * HOT child's TID here, else check_exclusion_constraint will think
+                * the child is a conflict.
                 */
                check_exclusion_constraint(trigdata->tg_relation, indexRel, indexInfo,
-                                                                  &(new_row->t_self), values, isnull,
+                                                                  &tmptid, values, isnull,
                                                                   estate, false, false);
        }
 

diff --git a/src/test/regress/input/constraints.source b/src/test/regress/input/constraints.source
index 16d38f6d1e754f608929b0bf59ea7bf1751b81ef..58c976d95be2c1360fbdfbcc36943ffd35825c68 100644 (file)
--- a/src/test/regress/input/constraints.source
+++ b/src/test/regress/input/constraints.source
@@ -456,6 +456,7 @@ DROP TABLE circles;
 
 CREATE TABLE deferred_excl (
   f1 int,
+  f2 int,
   CONSTRAINT deferred_excl_con EXCLUDE (f1 WITH =) INITIALLY DEFERRED
 );
 
@@ -470,6 +471,15 @@ INSERT INTO deferred_excl VALUES(3);
 INSERT INTO deferred_excl VALUES(3); -- no fail here
 COMMIT; -- should fail here
 
+-- bug #13148: deferred constraint versus HOT update
+BEGIN;
+INSERT INTO deferred_excl VALUES(2, 1); -- no fail here
+DELETE FROM deferred_excl WHERE f1 = 2 AND f2 IS NULL; -- remove old row
+UPDATE deferred_excl SET f2 = 2 WHERE f1 = 2;
+COMMIT; -- should not fail
+
+SELECT * FROM deferred_excl;
+
 ALTER TABLE deferred_excl DROP CONSTRAINT deferred_excl_con;
 
 -- This should fail, but worth testing because of HOT updates

diff --git a/src/test/regress/output/constraints.source b/src/test/regress/output/constraints.source
index 2ffd263dd352d8fd2a87f4d10a20d8205c00e543..9c627a9e017d70bf206a09ee878f7d7c36ea7e34 100644 (file)
--- a/src/test/regress/output/constraints.source
+++ b/src/test/regress/output/constraints.source
@@ -620,6 +620,7 @@ DROP TABLE circles;
 -- Check deferred exclusion constraint
 CREATE TABLE deferred_excl (
   f1 int,
+  f2 int,
   CONSTRAINT deferred_excl_con EXCLUDE (f1 WITH =) INITIALLY DEFERRED
 );
 INSERT INTO deferred_excl VALUES(1);
@@ -638,6 +639,19 @@ INSERT INTO deferred_excl VALUES(3); -- no fail here
 COMMIT; -- should fail here
 ERROR:  conflicting key value violates exclusion constraint "deferred_excl_con"
 DETAIL:  Key (f1)=(3) conflicts with existing key (f1)=(3).
+-- bug #13148: deferred constraint versus HOT update
+BEGIN;
+INSERT INTO deferred_excl VALUES(2, 1); -- no fail here
+DELETE FROM deferred_excl WHERE f1 = 2 AND f2 IS NULL; -- remove old row
+UPDATE deferred_excl SET f2 = 2 WHERE f1 = 2;
+COMMIT; -- should not fail
+SELECT * FROM deferred_excl;
+ f1 | f2 
+----+----
+  1 |   
+  2 |  2
+(2 rows)
+
 ALTER TABLE deferred_excl DROP CONSTRAINT deferred_excl_con;
 -- This should fail, but worth testing because of HOT updates
 UPDATE deferred_excl SET f1 = 3;