Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Better to fix the callers so that they don't have the assumption you
>> refer to. Or maybe we could adjust the API of RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap
>> so that it returns all the sets needed by a given calling module at
>> once, which would allow us to guarantee they're consistent.
> Note that my "interesting attrs" patch does away with these independent
> bitmaps (which was last posted by Pavan as part of his WARM set). I
> think we should fix just this bug now, and for the future look at that
> other approach.
BTW, if there is a risk of the assertion failure that Amit posits,
it seems like it should have happened in the tests that Pavan was doing
originally. I'd sort of like to see a demonstration that it can actually
happen before we spend any great amount of time fixing it.
regards, tom lane
