On 10/31/21, 12:39 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Yeah, there's no expectation that this data structure needs to be kept
> consistent after an error; and I'm not real sure that the existing
> code could claim to satisfy such a requirement if we did need it.
> (There's at least a short window where the caller's hash table entry
> will point at an already-freed List.)
Right.
> Pushed the patch as given. I've not yet reviewed other list_delete_first
> callers, but I'll take a look. (I seem to remember that I did survey
> them while writing 1cff1b95a, but I evidently missed that this code
> could be dealing with a list long enough to be problematic.)
Thanks!
Nathan
