FW: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was expec ted

It appears this has been uncovered and a patch for 6.5 is coming.

-----Original Message-----
From:    Vadim Mikheev [SMTP:vadim@krs.ru] <mailto:[SMTP:vadim@krs.ru]> 
Sent:    Monday, April 26, 1999 12:57 AM
To:    t-ishii@sra.co.jp <mailto:t-ishii@sra.co.jp> 
Cc:    Hiroshi Inoue; pgsql-hackers
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree: BTP_CHAIN flag was
expected

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:> > Any objection to the pacthes below?  Seems they solve problems> reported by a user in Japan
(bothon 6.4.2 and current).> --> Tatsuo Ishii>     > >From:    "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp
 
<mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp> >    > >To:    "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
<mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org> >    > >Subject:    [HACKERS] A patch for FATAL 1:btree:
BTP_CHAIN flag was expected    > >Date:    Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:00:57 +0900    > >Message-ID:
<000801be8594$869ad2a0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp
<mailto:000801be8594$869ad2a0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp> >>     > >Hello all,    > >    > >There exists the bug that
causeselog()  FATAL 1:btree:    > >BTP_CHAIN flag was expected.    > >The following patch would solve the bug
partially.   > >    > >It seems that the bug is caused by _bt_split() in
 
nbtinsert.c.    > >BTP_CHAIN flags of buf/rbuf are always off immediately
after    > >_bt_split(),so the pages may be in inconsistent state.    > >Though the flags are chagned correctly before
_bt_relbuf(),    > >buf/rbuf are not _bt_wrt(norel)buf()'d after the change    > >(buf/rbuf are already
_bt_wrtnorelbuf()'din _bt_split()
 
).    > >

Let me check it...
I'll commit it myself...

Vadim