From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | hargudekishor(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14273: Tuple concurently updated error while creating function using async call from node js with postgresq |
Date: | 2016-08-03 00:14:10 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTyE-=50b5hhv69b5=nUN5cnnK2NcBJtsGScxdq=PAw8A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> hargudekishor(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
>> We have connected our node js application with postgresql-9.4.8.We have
>> several functions which are getting created in database using async call
>> from nodejs to postgresql server.but while creating those functions ,We are
>> encountered a error of "Tuple concurrently updated".
>
> Yeah, this is known. We haven't worried too much, because the use case
> seems thin: why are you deleting and creating the function over and
> over? Wouldn't it be better to create the function once and be done
> with it?
Hm. These days I have been pinged regarding the fact that it is
possible to reach this error on a relation that has a lot of updates
and where autovacuum is made more aggressive. Well, it increases the
possibility to face it. simple_heap_delete() is not used except for
catalogs, so could it be related to one of the pg_stat catalogs
complaining with VACUUM ANALYZE running in parallel?
>> And because of this error our node js application is getting
>> terminated.which is not affordable to us.
>
> Surely the application should be able to do something else upon
> receiving an error, rather than crashing.
That's for sure. A crash is a bad idea, and I recall that this is not
a critical failure.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | TAKATSUKA Haruka | 2016-08-03 05:18:24 | Re: BUG #14243: pg_basebackup failes by a STATUS_DELETE_PENDING file |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-08-03 00:03:24 | Re: BUG #13810: cursor_to_xml ignores tableforest parameter |