| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)aiven(dot)io>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Tripp <peter(at)chartio(dot)com>, Virendra Negi <virendra(at)idyllic-software(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Date: | 2016-07-07 00:16:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20160707001648.yw4op27voytg7map@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2016-07-06 17:14:30 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> We didn't simply neglect to make heap_abort_speculative() consider
> >> TOAST at all, though.
> >
> > Well, not quite, but nearly. Afaics it currently can only work if the
> > toasted columns have been inserted by a different command, before the
> > INSERT ON CONFLICT does anything. I don't see how it can work for newly
> > inserted toast data. When heap_abort_speculative deletes toast data,
> > when would it *ever* not fail if the same command executed the toast
> > data?
>
> Why would the toasted data ever not be newly inserted in practice?
Don't think so, atm.
> And so, in simpler words, you believe that any
> heap_abort_speculative() call to toast_delete() will cause this error
> to be raised?
Looks that way, yes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-07-07 00:22:14 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-07-07 00:15:32 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |