| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Wood, Dan" <hexpert(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| Date: | 2017-09-28 22:20:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ6r6480qzit4+q3fGmTSy1UHYA8o8RTn46iOxsY6UkwQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> In the end, commit 6bfa88a fixed that old recovery bug by making sure
> the recovery routine heap_xlog_lock() did the right thing. In both
> cases (Feb 2014 and today), the index wasn't really corrupt -- it just
> pointed to the root of a HOT chain when it should point to some child
> tuple (or maybe a successor HOT chain).
Unless I'm very confused, it's really not OK to point at a child tuple
rather than the root of the HOT chain.
Pointing to a successor HOT chain would be OK, as long as you point to
the root tuple thereof.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-28 22:24:47 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-28 22:09:38 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-09-28 22:24:47 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-28 22:18:34 | Re: The case for removing replacement selection sort |