* Tom Lane:
> I am fairly sure that this bug explains problems previously reported
> by Merlin Moncure:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-10/msg01312.php
> and Florian Weimer:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-11/msg00305.php
> In both those cases, off-list inve
On 9/16/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Couldn't say. Those two were on my mind because the reporters had
> allowed me to troll through their table and index files and verify
> that there were indeed multiple index pointers to the same table row,
> and yet the index itself did not sh
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Those bug reports have been bothering me for most of a year ...
> Are there any other outstanding reports like that?
Couldn't say. Those two were on my mind because the reporters had
allowed me to troll through
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a corner case, but I say it's a must-fix.
Of course
> Those bug reports have been bothering me for most of a year ...
Are there any other outstanding reports like that?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
I wrote:
> Is this analysis accurate, or am I missing something? If it is
> accurate, do we need to postpone the upcoming releases to fix it?
> I am thinking that some previously unexplained reports of index
> corruption might now be explained ...
Yeah, it's broken. Reproducing the race conditio
While looking at the HOT patch I suddenly started to question the sanity
of vacuumlazy.c's count_nondeletable_pages(). It sits there and does a
HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum on any tuples it finds, and is willing to
truncate away a page that contains only DEAD tuples. The problem with
this theory is t
