On 10/31/21, 12:39 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah, there's no expectation that this data structure needs to be kept > consistent after an error; and I'm not real sure that the existing > code could claim to satisfy such a requirement if we did need it. > (There's at least a short window where the caller's hash table entry > will point at an already-freed List.)
Right. > Pushed the patch as given. I've not yet reviewed other list_delete_first > callers, but I'll take a look. (I seem to remember that I did survey > them while writing 1cff1b95a, but I evidently missed that this code > could be dealing with a list long enough to be problematic.) Thanks! Nathan
