Re: [HACKERS] heap_update is broken in current sources

2001-01-08 Thread The Hermit Hacker
okay, will bundle up beta2 and announce it tonight when I get home ... gives about 6 hrs or so to "halt the presses" *grin* On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > How are we on this? > > It's fixed. > > I've also run the regress tests with bufmgr

Re: [HACKERS] heap_update is broken in current sources

2001-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How are we on this? It's fixed. I've also run the regress tests with bufmgr.c hacked up to discard pages (with forcible overwriting) as soon as their refcount goes to zero. That didn't disclose any similar bugs, although the coverage of the tests

Re: [HACKERS] heap_update is broken in current sources

2001-01-08 Thread The Hermit Hacker
How are we on this? On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > heap_update() currently ends with > > if (newbuf != buffer) > { > LockBuffer(newbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK); > WriteBuffer(newbuf); > } > LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK); > WriteBuffer(buffer); > >

[HACKERS] heap_update is broken in current sources

2001-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
heap_update() currently ends with if (newbuf != buffer) { LockBuffer(newbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK); WriteBuffer(newbuf); } LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK); WriteBuffer(buffer); /* invalidate caches */ RelationInvalidateHeapTuple(relation, &oldtup)