Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Yeah, we're still missing an understanding of why we didn't see it >> before; the inadequate locking was surely there before.
> Because 24992c6d has added a check on the offset number by using > PageIndexTupleDeleteNoCompact() in brin_doupdate() making checks > tighter, no? No, I don't see how it's tighter. The old code matched supplied offnum(s) against the indexes of not-unused items, and then after that loop it complained if they weren't all matched. So it should also have failed, albeit with a different error message, if it were passed an offnum corresponding to a no-longer-live tuple. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers