Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oeUoW-0006bL-4k for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2022 05:13:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oeUoU-0003mq-W5 for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2022 05:13:22 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oeUoU-0003mh-NA for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2022 05:13:22 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oeUoO-00041E-3y for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2022 05:13:21 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2915DDcP873100; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 01:13:13 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Jaime Casanova , pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org, Jeff Davis Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid improbable PANIC during heap_update. In-reply-to: References: <692791.1664573331@sss.pgh.pa.us> <741997.1664574971@sss.pgh.pa.us> <841352.1664581964@sss.pgh.pa.us> <869716.1664599080@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Fri, 30 Sep 2022 22:09:19 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <873098.1664601193.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 01:13:13 -0400 Message-ID: <873099.1664601193@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > I think that the heap_delete() issue is probably in all PG versions. Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of ... > I am not aware of any reason why we should need the heap_update() > fixes to be backpatched any further. How so? AFAICS these are exactly the same oversight, ie failure to deal with the all-visible bit getting set partway through the operation. You've explained how that can happen. regards, tom lane