From: | SZŰCS Gábor <surrano(at)mailbox(dot)hu> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "PGH" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: simple_heap_update: tuple concurrently updated -- during INSERT |
Date: | 2004-06-10 09:40:59 |
Message-ID: | 005701c44ecf$09ab13e0$0403a8c0@fejleszt4 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Tom,
I'll try my best. Also, I'll try to describe the situation more precisely,
in case it may give you another idea.
INSERT INTO p_items;
-> p_items before: INSERT, UPDATE and/or DELETE other tuples in p_items
-> p_items after: UPDATE p SET touch_time, toucher;
----> p after: INSERT INTO p_ny
-------> p_ny after: NOTIFY p
May it be that more "NOTIFY p"'s come from the same transaction (since I
change more than one tuples in p_items)? Based on the error text, I assume
this error comes only when two different transactions clash.
I think it's very unlikely anyway since it happens ~100-1000 times a day and
so far (~2 years of 7.3.3) this is the only occurence of this error.
A final question: as far as you can remember, may this be an issue already
fixed in later versions?
Thanks again, HTH, and I'll report back if I encounter the error again.
G.
%----------------------- cut here -----------------------%
\end
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] simple_heap_update: tuple concurrently updated --
during INSERT
> "=?iso-8859-2?B?U1rbQ1MgR+Fib3I=?=" <surrano(at)mailbox(dot)hu> writes:
> > Q1. So is this everything that can be said -- NOTIFY calls
> > simple_heap_update that is concurrently updated by a different
transaction?
>
> If that's what it is, then there's still a question: why? The notify
> code has enough locking that this failure shouldn't happen. If you can
> reproduce this I'd like to look into it.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-10 11:56:47 | Re: Why hash indexes suck |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-06-10 07:32:11 | Re: I/O support for composite types |