On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 12:00 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-03-12 20:09:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On the pgsql-packagers list, there has been some (OT for that list) > > discussion of whether commit 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6 > > is sufficiently serious to justify yet another immediate minor release > > of 9.3.x. The relevant questions seem to be: > > > > 1. Is it really bad? > > It breaks the ctid of concurrently updated/locked tuples during WAL > replay. Which can lead to all sorts of nastiness like indexes not > finding any rows. Since that kind of locking/updating is pretty common > with foreign keys, it's not an unlikely scenario. > Unfortunately FPIs won't save the day in all that many scenarios because > there'll normally a XLOG_HEAP2_LOCK_UPDATED before the XLOG_HEAP_LOCK > record which is replayed badly. > > Now, one could argue that it only affects replicas or servers that > crashed at some point, but I think that's not much comfort. > > > 2. Does it affect a lot of people or only a few? > > It's been reported twice (Peter Geoghegan, Greg Stark) by Heroku and one > person on IRC could reproduce it repeatedly. The latter was what made me > look into it again and find the bug. Greg has confirmed that it fixes > the bug when replaying the WAL again. > > > 3. Are there more, equally bad bugs that are unfixed, or perhaps even > > unreported, yet? > > Uh. I have no idea. I don't know of any reports that can't be attributed > to any of these, but as you're also include unreported bugs in that > question... >
Does this affect also other branches? 9.2 ? regards, -- Jozef Mlich <jml...@redhat.com> Associate Software Engineer - EMEA ENG Developer Experience Mobile: +420 604 217 719 http://cz.redhat.com/ Red Hat, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
