From: | Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1 |
Date: | 2009-10-06 06:29:07 |
Message-ID: | g0g9sur7hrudzo9ar3UYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Stuart Bishop wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Alban Hertroys
>> <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> wrote:
>
>> > A similar issue was discussed just recently here:
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2009-09/msg01219.php
>> >
>> > That issue involved cursors though (and a serializable isolation level, but
>> > you have that). Do you have any triggers that use cursors on the table that
>> > the update fails for?
>>
>> There is a trigger on that table, and it is certainly the culprit as
>> can be seen here (different table, same trigger):
>
> I don't think the committed patch touches anything involved in what
> you're testing, but if you could grab CVS tip from the 8.4 branch (or
> the snapshot from ftp.postgresql.org:/pub/snapshot/stable/8.4 ) and give
> it a try, that'd be great.
I trigger the same error with a freshly built snapshot.
--
Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net>
http://www.stuartbishop.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-10-06 06:30:53 | Re: numeric field overflow |
Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2009-10-06 06:26:03 | Re: numeric field overflow |