Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1

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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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