How are we on this?
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> heap_update() currently ends with
>
> if (newbuf != buffer)
> {
> LockBuffer(newbuf, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK);
> WriteBuffer(newbuf);
> }
> LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK);
> WriteBuffer(buffer);
>
> /* invalidate caches */
> RelationInvalidateHeapTuple(relation, &oldtup);
> RelationMark4RollbackHeapTuple(relation, newtup);
>
> return HeapTupleMayBeUpdated;
>
> This is broken because WriteBuffer releases our refcounts on the buffer
> pages that are holding the old and new tuples. By the time
> RelationInvalidateHeapTuple gets to do its thing, some other backend may
> have swapped a new disk page into the shared buffer that oldtup points
> at. catcache.c will then be using the wrong data to compute the hash
> index of the old tuple. This will at minimum result in failure to
> invalidate the old tuple out of our catcache (because we'll be searching
> the wrong hashchains), and can lead to a flat-out crash or Assert
> failure due to invalid data being fed to the hashing code.
>
> I have seen several nonrepeatable failures in the parallel regress tests
> in recent weeks, which I now believe are all traceable to this error.
>
> I will commit a fix for this error shortly, and have recommended to Marc
> that he re-roll the beta2 tarball before announcing it...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
