Re: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was expected

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> Any objection to the pacthes below? Seems they solve problems
> reported by a user in Japan (both on 6.4.2 and current).
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
>
> >From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
> >To: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
> >Subject: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was expected
> >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:00:57 +0900
> >Message-ID: <000801be8594$869ad2a0$2801007e(at)cadzone(dot)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >There exists the bug that causes elog() FATAL 1:btree:
> >BTP_CHAIN flag was expected.
> >The following patch would solve the bug partially.
> >
> >It seems that the bug is caused by _bt_split() in nbtinsert.c.
> >BTP_CHAIN flags of buf/rbuf are always off immediately after
> >_bt_split(),so the pages may be in inconsistent state.
> >Though the flags are chagned correctly before _bt_relbuf(),
> >buf/rbuf are not _bt_wrt(norel)buf()'d after the change
> >(buf/rbuf are already _bt_wrtnorelbuf()'d in _bt_split() ).
> >

Let me check it...
I'll commit it myself...

Vadim