| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases |
| Date: | 2014-03-17 18:32:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20140317183207.GP16438@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-03-17 14:29:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > To me that looks sufficient to trigger the bug, because we're issuing a
> > wal record about the row that was passed to heap_lock_update(), not the
> > latest one in the ctid chain. When replaying that record, it will reset
> > the t_ctid field, thus breaking the chain.
>
> [ scratches head ... ] If that's what's happening, isn't it a bug in
> itself? Surely the WAL record ought to point at the tuple that was
> locked.
There's a separate XLOG_HEAP2_LOCK_UPDATED record, for every later tuple
version, emitted by heap_lock_updated_tuple_rec(). This really is mind
bendingly complex :(.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2014-03-17 18:35:38 | Re: Planner hints in Postgresql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-17 18:29:56 | Re: First-draft release notes for next week's releases |