| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Wood <dwood(at)salesforce(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 9.3 reference constraint regression |
| Date: | 2013-12-17 21:27:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20131217212726.GQ12902@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Well, it would help if those cases weren't dead code. Neither
> heap_update nor heap_delete are ever called in the "no wait" case at
> all. Only heap_lock_tuple is, and I can't see any misbehavior there
> either, even with HeapTupleBeingUpdated returned when there's a
> non-local locker, or when there's a MultiXact as xmax, regardless of its
> status.
I spent some more time trying to generate a test case that would show a
problem with the changed return values here, and was unable to.
I intend to apply this patch soon.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| danwood-bug.patch | text/x-diff | 2.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-12-17 21:42:22 | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-12-17 21:26:09 | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |