FW: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was expec ted

It appears this has been uncovered and a patch for 6.5 is coming.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Mikheev [SMTP:vadim(at)krs(dot)ru] <mailto:[SMTP:vadim(at)krs(dot)ru]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 12:57 AM
To: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp <mailto:t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue; pgsql-hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was
expected

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> Any objection to the pacthes below? Seems they solve problems
> reported by a user in Japan (both on 6.4.2 and current).
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
>
> >From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
<mailto:Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> >
> >To: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
<mailto:pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> >
> >Subject: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree:
BTP_CHAIN flag was expected
> >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:00:57 +0900
> >Message-ID:
<000801be8594$869ad2a0$2801007e(at)cadzone(dot)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
<mailto:000801be8594$869ad2a0$2801007e(at)cadzone(dot)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> >
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >There exists the bug that causes elog() FATAL 1:btree:
> >BTP_CHAIN flag was expected.
> >The following patch would solve the bug partially.
> >
> >It seems that the bug is caused by _bt_split() in
nbtinsert.c.
> >BTP_CHAIN flags of buf/rbuf are always off immediately
after
> >_bt_split(),so the pages may be in inconsistent state.
> >Though the flags are chagned correctly before
_bt_relbuf(),
> >buf/rbuf are not _bt_wrt(norel)buf()'d after the change
> >(buf/rbuf are already _bt_wrtnorelbuf()'d in _bt_split()
).
> >

Let me check it...
I'll commit it myself...

Vadim