From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ERROR: tuple concurrently updated |
Date: | 2006-12-21 15:29:14 |
Message-ID: | 19489.1166714954@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> I havn't built a reliable test case yet but I *think* the tuple
> concurrently updated problem is with an analyze being run inside of a
> function and also being run by autovacuum.
If so it should be fixed as of 8.2 --- I believe we changed the locking
rules to ensure only one ANALYZE at a time for any one table.
Conflicts from concurrent ANALYZEs are the only cases I've heard of
before that make this error occur in the field, but I suppose it would
be possible to get it from other things such as concurrently trying to
CREATE OR REPLACE the same function.
> The SysCache stuff I was
> thinking about previously was actually for another problem that I hadn't
> seen in a long time (because I hadn't been doing a particular set of
> operations, not because it's that difficult to have happen) but just ran
> into again today:
> ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation ...
I think we've got a solution for that in 8.2, also --- at least, the
only common case I know of should be fixed, namely where a RENAME or
similar has caused the same table name to be assigned to a new OID.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2006-12-21 15:32:51 | Re: Stats Collector Oddity |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-21 15:27:12 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |