Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps we should just fix this one in master and consider > back-patching it if and when we get some plausibly related bug > reports. I'm not completely clear on what one would do to be vulnerable to hitting the bug, or what the impact of hitting it would be. Tom said: > The potential consequences are hugely worse than that, though: > with a bit more time between the two operations, it'd be possible > for someone else to reclaim the dead tuple and replace it with > something else. As long as the TID is live when we get to it, > heap_update will blindly replace it, whether or not it has > anything to do with the tuple we think we're replacing. What would a worst-case bug report based on hitting that look like? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
