When I was investigating this report:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00349.php
besides providing a straightforward fix here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00352.php
I noted that there was nearby code which needed review, as it didn't
seem safe when in a subtransaction. Further review confirmed this
and didn't turn up any other problems in that section of code. So,
a fix for this overreaching optimization is attached. Note that it
is a one-line fix except for some additional comments to explain the
limitation.
This patch is in addition to and orthogonal to the first patch cited
above.
I will add this one to the 9.1 open items list.
-Kevin
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> When I was investigating this report:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00349.php
>
> besides providing a straightforward fix here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2011-03/msg00352.php
>
> I noted that there was nearby code which needed review, as it
> didn't seem safe when in a subtransaction. Further review
> confirmed this and didn't turn up any other problems in that
> section of code. So, a fix for this overreaching optimization is
> attached. Note that it is a one-line fix except for some
> additional comments to explain the limitation.
>
> This patch is in addition to and orthogonal to the first patch
> cited above.
>
> I will add this one to the 9.1 open items list.
I managed to get a one-line patch wrong. Sorry. 2nd try.
-Kevin