Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 15:42:11 -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> What back-patching will be needed for a fix? It sounds like
>> 9.3?
>
> Yep.
In going over this, I found pre-existing bugs when a tuple was both
inserted and deleted by concurrent transactions, but fixing that is
too invasive to consider for Monday's minor release lockdown. The
attached seems very safe to me, and protects against some new
hazards related to the subtransaction changes (mostly just for an
assert-enabled build, but still worth fixing). It includes a lot
of work on the comments, to guide the subsequent fixes or other
work in that area.
If nobody objects, I will push it to master and 9.3 tomorrow.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
