> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:23:13PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The first attached (renamed to .txt not to confuse the cfbots) is a
> small patch that makes sure if _bt_readpage is called with the proper
> condition as written in its comment, that is, caller must have pinned
> and read-locked so->currPos.buf. This patch reveals many instances of
> breakage of the contract.
Thanks! On top of which patch version one can apply it? I'm asking
because I believe I've addressed similar issues in the last version, and
the last proposed diff (after resolving some conflicts) breaks tests for
me, so not sure if I miss something.
At the same time if you and Tomas strongly agree that it actually makes
sense to make moving forward/reading backward case work with dead tuples
correctly, I'll take a shot and try to teach the code around _bt_skip to
do what is required for that. I can merge your changes there and we can
see what would be the result.