Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> Suppose that the bug was actually in 06f5295af6, "Add single-item
> cache when looking at topmost XID of a subtrans XID". Doesn't that fit
> your timeline just as well?
I'd dismissed that on the grounds that there are no subtrans XIDs
involved in tenk1's contents. However, if that patch was faulty
enough, maybe it affected other cases besides the advertised one?
I've not read it.
regards, tom lane