Hi!
So, if other hackers are agreed with my reasoning, the suggested fix is
sufficient and can be committed.
Patch looks right, but I think that comment should be improved in follow piece:
if (stack->blkno != GIST_ROOT_BLKNO &&
- stack->parent->lsn < GistPageGetNSN(stack->page))
+ ((stack->parent->lsn < GistPageGetNSN(stack->page)) ||
+ stack->retry_from_parent == true))
{
/*
* Concurrent split detected. There's no guarantee that the
....
Not only concurrent split could be deteced here and it was missed long ago. But
this patch seems a good chance to change this comment.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
