On 2026-09-09 We 7:39 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2026-09-08 Tu 7:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 07:28:51PM +0530, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 23:28, Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
wrote:
I think this should be applied as a single squashed commit,
(soon so I can rely on it for the fixes I mentioned).
Yeah, a backpatch seems adapted. That's a nasty problem. It's
unlikely going to be hit in practice, but we can say that for a bunch
of stuff that gets backpatched.
I think it should be backpatched - all live branches have the same
problem.
Agreed that this should be backpatched to all live branches.
Andrew, are you planning to work on it? I did not spend cycles
looking at the details and the command patterns involved, on the
premise that you would handle that. Saying that, the premise of the
patch feels sound with a few more additional shared locks to prevent
the concurrent manipulations.
Thanks for looking.
Yes, planning to work on it today.
Pushed, thanks all.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
