Re: Inval reliability, especially for inplace updates

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 10:29:25AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 04:38:29PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > This was a near miss to having a worst-in-years regression in a minor release,
> > so I'm proposing this sequence:
> >
> > - Revert from non-master branches commits 8e7e672 (inplace180, "WAL-log
> > inplace update before revealing it to other sessions.") and 243e9b4
> > (inplace160, "For inplace update, send nontransactional invalidations.").
> >
> > - Back-patch inplace230-index_update_stats-io-before-buflock to harden commit
> > a07e03f (inplace110, "Fix data loss at inplace update after heap_update()").
> >
> > - Push attached inplace240 to master.
> >
> > - Make the commitfest entry a request for review of v17 inplace160+inplace240.
> > After some amount of additional review and master bake time, the reverted
> > patches would return to non-master branches.

> Pushed as 0bada39.

> I'm attaching the v17 patch that now becomes the commitfest submission

That still applies cleanly. I'm adding a back-patch of commit f4ece89, which
adds assertions intended to build confidence about the main patch. The
commitfest entry requests a review of the first patch only, but the second
patch may answer questions that a review of the first would otherwise raise.