From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Possible SSI bug in heap_update
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:54:45 -0400
Message-ID: <2689164.1618160085@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
While re-reading heap_update() in connection with that PANIC we're
chasing, my attention was drawn to this comment:
/*
* Note: beyond this point, use oldtup not otid to refer to old tuple.
* otid may very well point at newtup->t_self, which we will overwrite
* with the new tuple's location, so there's great risk of confusion if we
* use otid anymore.
*/
This seemingly sage advice is being ignored in one place:
CheckForSerializableConflictIn(relation, otid, BufferGetBlockNumber(buffer));
I wonder whether that's a mistake. There'd be only a low probability
of our detecting it through testing, I fear.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Possible SSI bug in heap_update
In-Reply-To: <2689164.1618160085@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox