| 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: | 2016-07-31 22:31:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20160731223146.52zykyros7wx57t2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2016-07-29 17:37:21 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> That it needs a test, or that it's easy to do?
> >
> > That it's easy to write one.
>
> I'll be more concrete: I don't see what choke point is available to
> make control yield after the pre-check determines there is no
> conflict, but before index tuple insertion determines that there is in
> fact a conflict (to reliably trigger a failed specualtive
> insertion/super deletion).
An expression index over a function acquiring a lock looks like it
should do the trick.
Are you looking in writing an updated patch? It seems we're on one page
of the rough direction.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-07-31 22:45:26 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-07-31 05:17:17 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |