Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: _bt_parent_deletion_safe() isn't safe

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Amiel <becauseimjeff(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: _bt_parent_deletion_safe() isn't safe
Date: 2010-07-04 02:15:23
Message-ID: 1278209602-sup-1299@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie jul 02 22:02:59 -0400 2010:

> Possibly.  I was planning to go back and study that code a bit more ---
> I have a feeling that there might be some kind of rare concurrency bug
> involved in btree page deletion.  But I've been up to my rear in
> other alligators for the past several weeks.

Judging from the evidence I've seen, I'm fairly sure that there *is* a
concurrency bug somewhere in that code.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-04 02:37:28
Subject: Re: reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-03 22:41:22
Subject: Re: Why are these modules built without respecting my LDFLAGS?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group