On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar sep 20 16:04:03 -0300 2011: >>>> On 20.09.2011 20:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>>> I notice that heap_update releases the buffer lock, after checking the >>>>> HeapTupleSatifiesUpdate result, and before marking the tuple as updated, >>>>> to pin the visibility map page -- heapam.c lines 2638ff in master branch. > >>> The easiest fix seems to be (as you suggest) to add "goto l2" after >>> reacquiring the lock. Can we get away with (and is there any benefit >>> to) doing that only if xmax has changed? > >> Hmm ... I think that works, and it would suit my purposes too. Note >> this means you have to recheck infomask too (otherwise consider that >> IS_MULTI could be set the first time, and not set the second time, and >> that makes the Xmax have a different meaning.) OTOH if you just do it >> always, it is simpler. > > Yeah, I think a "goto l2" is correct and sufficient. As the comment > already notes, this need not be a high-performance path, so why spend > extra code (with extra risk of bugs)?
Done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
