It appears this has been uncovered and a patch for 6.5 is coming.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Mikheev [SMTP:vadim@krs.ru] <mailto:[SMTP:vadim@krs.ru]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 12:57 AM
To: t-ishii@sra.co.jp <mailto:t-ishii@sra.co.jp>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue; pgsql-hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was
expected
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:> > Any objection to the pacthes below? Seems they solve problems> reported by a user in Japan
(bothon 6.4.2 and current).> --> Tatsuo Ishii> > >From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp
<mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp> > > >To: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
<mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org> > > >Subject: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree:
BTP_CHAIN flag was expected > >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:00:57 +0900 > >Message-ID:
<000801be8594$869ad2a0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp
<mailto:000801be8594$869ad2a0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp> >> > >Hello all, > > > >There exists the bug that
causeselog() FATAL 1:btree: > >BTP_CHAIN flag was expected. > >The following patch would solve the bug
partially. > > > >It seems that the bug is caused by _bt_split() in
nbtinsert.c. > >BTP_CHAIN flags of buf/rbuf are always off immediately
after > >_bt_split(),so the pages may be in inconsistent state. > >Though the flags are chagned correctly before
_bt_relbuf(), > >buf/rbuf are not _bt_wrt(norel)buf()'d after the change > >(buf/rbuf are already
_bt_wrtnorelbuf()'din _bt_split()
). > >
Let me check it...
I'll commit it myself...
Vadim
