On 2016-06-30 12:40:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2016-06-22 11:45:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Actually, the function is ReorderBufferIterTXNInit, and in HEAD this
> >> is line 963, but yeah that looks pretty broken. Andres, do you
> >> concur?
>
> > Ugh, yes, that looks broken. In a way that can very likely lead to wrong
> > data being returned :(. I assume an empty toplevel transaction +
> > subtransactions with spilled-to-disk contents will be bad.
>
> Actually, doesn't this mean spilled subtransactions will *always* be lost?
> Whether or not the toplevel transaction is empty, by the time we get here
> it would have nentries == nentries_mem, no?
Not, if the top-level transaction spilled to disk.
> Anyway, fix pushed.
Thanks!.
> I did not try to devise a regression test case.
I'll try to add some.
Andres