> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:23:13PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > The first attached (renamed to .txt not to confuse the cfbots) is a > small patch that makes sure if _bt_readpage is called with the proper > condition as written in its comment, that is, caller must have pinned > and read-locked so->currPos.buf. This patch reveals many instances of > breakage of the contract.
Thanks! On top of which patch version one can apply it? I'm asking because I believe I've addressed similar issues in the last version, and the last proposed diff (after resolving some conflicts) breaks tests for me, so not sure if I miss something. At the same time if you and Tomas strongly agree that it actually makes sense to make moving forward/reading backward case work with dead tuples correctly, I'll take a shot and try to teach the code around _bt_skip to do what is required for that. I can merge your changes there and we can see what would be the result.
