Tom Lane wrote:
> --- 74,80
>* That might actually be OK for the index scans, though. The newly inserted
>* tuple wouldn't have an index pointer yet, so all tuples reachable from an
>* index would still be visible to all other backends, and deletions
> wouldn't
> ! * be visible t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Log Message:
> ---
> Fix a violation of WAL coding rules in the recent patch to include an
> "all tuples visible" flag in heap page headers. The flag update *must*
> be applied before calling XLogInsert, but heap_update and the tuple
> moving routines in VACUUM FULL were
Log Message:
---
Fix a violation of WAL coding rules in the recent patch to include an
"all tuples visible" flag in heap page headers. The flag update *must*
be applied before calling XLogInsert, but heap_update and the tuple
moving routines in VACUUM FULL were ignoring this rule. A crash
Log Message:
---
Fix a violation of WAL coding rules in the recent patch to include an
"all tuples visible" flag in heap page headers. The flag update *must*
be applied before calling XLogInsert, but heap_update and the tuple
moving routines in VACUUM FULL were ignoring this rule. A crash
