| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bryan Murphy <bmurphy1976(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Date: | 2009-08-17 18:01:30 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0908171101p59ef5489p51f0cfa793e2b27d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hm, what's your current XID counter? (pg_controldata would give an
> approximate answer.) I'm wondering if the xmax's are marked committed
> but are in the future ...
>
FWIW that doesn't look right. That would result in
HeapTupleBeingUpdated. The only case where it could result in
"invisible" is if it's our own xid.
Excluding the cases where our own xid is in the tuple I think the
relevant cases are either
xmin aborted or in progress (or in future)
MOVED_OFF and xvac committed
MOVED_IN and xvac aborted or is in progress (or in future)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2009-08-17 18:23:42 | Re: plpython return setof and yield |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-17 17:50:39 | Re: ERROR: attempted to delete invisible tuple |