Jeff Janes writes:
> ... But really, I don't think such
> communication should be necessary, and the xlrec.all_visible_cleared
> and xlrec.new_all_visible_cleared fields are unneeded. Just assume
> they are true. It seems like the worst thing that can happen is that
> we call PageClearAllVisible
Jeff Janes escribió:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > There seems to be a bug in the visibility map in 8.4.0, introduced to
> > cvs on 2008-12-03. It results in tuples being called visible that
> > shouldn't be.
>
> Well, never mind. It took me a few days to track down th
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> There seems to be a bug in the visibility map in 8.4.0, introduced to
> cvs on 2008-12-03. It results in tuples being called visible that
> shouldn't be.
Well, never mind. It took me a few days to track down the bug and in the
mean time I didn
There seems to be a bug in the visibility map in 8.4.0, introduced to
cvs on 2008-12-03. It results in tuples being called visible that
shouldn't be.
In heap_update function from heapam.c:
/*
* Note: we mustn't clear PD_ALL_VISIBLE flags before writing the WAL
* record
