On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, it seems I didn't put nearly enough thought into heap_update().
>> The fix for the immediate problem looks simple enough - all the code
>> has been refactored to use the new API, so the calls can be easily be
>> moved into the critical section (see attached). But looking at this a
>> little more, I see that heap_update() is many bricks short of a load,
>> because there are several places where the buffer can be unlocked and
>> relocked, and we don't recheck whether the page is all-visible after
>> reacquiring the lock. So I've got some more work to do here.
>
> See what you think of the attached. I *think* this covers all bases.
> It's a little more complicated than I would like, but I don't think
> fatally so.
For lack of comment, committed. It's hopefully at least better than
what was there before, which was clearly several bricks short of a
load.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
