| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bh W <wangbihua(dot)cn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19355: Attempt to insert data unexpectedly during concurrent update |
| Date: | 2026-01-07 12:52:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCVwnjNYNSLLTQCXgwhgGEascKHu+hEtDVn7PF4ZCZvm8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 at 09:37, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think the approach in your patch seems better for the reason
> you mentioned, at least for back-patching sanity.
>
> I intended all of these relid sets to account for prunable RELATION RTEs only.
Yes, I think that makes sense.
> Thanks Tender and Bernice for the additional analysis. I prefer Dean's
> fix-the-executor approach for back-patching. Bernice, are there other
> related issues you're aware of beyond this rowmark bug? Want to make
> sure Dean's patch covers them too.
It looks to me as though either approach would work, so I'm happy for
you to decide which approach fits best with your design.
> Thanks for the patch! Do you intend to commit and back-patch this
> yourself, or would you like me to handle it?
It's your code, and you're more familiar with it than me, so I'm happy
to leave it to you :-)
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-01-07 16:32:14 | Re: Bug Report: PostgreSQL 16 crashes on ALTER USER CURRENT_USER WITH PASSWORD |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2026-01-07 12:16:34 | Re: BUG #19355: Attempt to insert data unexpectedly during concurrent update |