From: | Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 'tuple concurrently updated' error for alter role ... set |
Date: | 2011-05-13 23:29:43 |
Message-ID: | 4D38043D-57AA-42A7-9C46-102C1A5EBC94@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 13, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
> On May 13, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>
>> We're not likely to do that, first because it's randomly different from
>> the handling of every other system catalog update, and second because it
>> would serialize all updates on this catalog, and probably create
>> deadlock cases that don't exist now. (BTW, as the patch is given I'd
>> expect it to still fail, though perhaps with lower probability than
>> before. For this to actually stop all such cases, you'd have to hold
>> the lock till commit, which greatly increases the risks of deadlock.)
>
....
>>
>> I see no particular reason why conflicting updates like those *shouldn't*
>> be expected to fail occasionally.
>
> Excellent question, I don't have enough context to properly answer that (other
> than a guess that an unexpected transaction rollback is too unexpected :))
> Let me ask the customer first.
The original use case is sporadical failures of some internal unit tests due
to the error message in subject.
--
Alexey Klyukin
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2011-05-13 23:53:16 | Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default? |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2011-05-13 23:04:47 | Re: Double ocurring Subplan |