On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
