Re: BUG #13148: Unexpected deferred EXCLUDE constraint violation on derived table

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: postgresql2(at)realityexists(dot)net
Cc: "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #13148: Unexpected deferred EXCLUDE constraint violation on derived table
Date: 2015-05-10 18:40:10
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbCCvfiRygyHXE2ci0FPK3iMU+BYbrzqmkTq0K=W1N5Jg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:28 AM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Please don't top-post.
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:19 AM, <postgresql2(at)realityexists(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> That's odd! I just confirmed again that I get the exact same error with
>> COMMIT (and no warnings). Are you able to run all the commands before the
>> COMMIT successfully and get 1 row back from the SELECT?
>>
>>
> ​I am. I am not using psql so I may be getting different errors compared
> to what psql would eventually emit. I suspect that the actual error is
> getting swallowed somewhere and then the processing on the COMMIT happens
> without the transaction being open.
>

​To clarify - the transaction still errors out; but to me, not using psql,
it seems to do so prior ​to the COMMIT itself being processed and so the
commit emits a warning about not being in a tranasction.

Ubuntu apt.postgresql.org 9.3.5

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-05-10 20:01:53 Re: BUG #13148: Unexpected deferred EXCLUDE constraint violation on derived table
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2015-05-10 18:28:04 Re: BUG #13148: Unexpected deferred EXCLUDE constraint violation on derived table

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-05-10 18:42:28 Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2015-05-10 18:31:52 Re: multixacts woes