Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, we're still missing an understanding of why we didn't see it
>> before; the inadequate locking was surely there before.
> Because 24992c6d has added a check on the offset number by using
> PageIndexTupleDeleteNoCompact() in brin_doupdate() making checks
> tighter, no?
No, I don't see how it's tighter. The old code matched supplied
offnum(s) against the indexes of not-unused items, and then after
that loop it complained if they weren't all matched. So it should
also have failed, albeit with a different error message, if it were
passed an offnum corresponding to a no-longer-live tuple.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
