| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Kuzmenkov <akuzmenkov(at)tigerdata(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertion failure in hash_kill_items() |
| Date: | 2026-04-07 14:38:36 |
| Message-ID: | 66439a51-0ff9-4897-b4e5-b6308693bb7f@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/03/2026 19:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2026-03-17 19:15:10 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> The second patch simplifies the condition in the 'unlock_page' part. This
>> isn't new, and isn't needed to fix the bug, it just caught my eye while
>> looking at this. I don't understand why the condition was the way it was,
>> checking just 'havePin' seems sufficient and more correct to me. Am I
>> missing something?
>
> I can't see anything either, quite odd. Most likely explanation seems to be
> that something changed during the development of 7c75ef571579.
>
>
> Indeed, the first version of the patch from
> https://postgr.es/m/CAE9k0Pm3KTx93K8_5j6VMzG4h5F%2BSyknxUwXrN-zqSZ9X8ZS3w%40mail.gmail.com
> was using "if (so->hashso_bucket_buf == so->currPos.buf)" both at the start
> and end of _hash_kill_items(). So likely it was just an accident during patch
> revisions.
Thanks for archeological excavation; pushed this second patch now.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla | 2026-04-07 14:39:45 | Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2026-04-07 14:36:09 | Re: Add errdetail() with PID and UID about source of termination signal |