| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17197: Assert failed on inserting index tuples after VACUUM |
| Date: | 2021-09-21 05:00:01 |
| Message-ID: | f76a292c-9170-1aef-91a0-59d9443b99a3@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hello Peter,
21.09.2021 00:03, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:35 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Before commit 3c3b8a4b our failing offset number would have at least
> found an LP_UNUSED item -- so no assertion failure. After that commit
> the offset's line pointer might actually be positioned "past the end
> of the line pointer array". But that is a valid state for a heap
> page/HOT chain to have -- so the assertion has it wrong.
>
> I'll push a fix soon. Thanks for the report!
Thanks for the fix!
But if that is a valid (or sane) state, then shouldn't the comment "Some
sanity checks" be removed (or updated) too?
Best regards,
Alexander
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Boris P. Korzun | 2021-09-21 05:04:58 | Re: Inconsistent behavior of pg_dump/pg_restore on DEFAULT PRIVILEGES |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2021-09-21 00:18:07 | BUG #17198: Planning time too high when execute query on standby cluster |