|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||r(dot)zharkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it was already committed|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019-04-06 12:23:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems that there may be some connection between this problem and
> EPQ. I was working on committing Amit's fix for bug #15677, which
> demonstrated that EPQ doesn't work for partitioned-table target rels.
> It seemed like there really needed to be regression test coverage for
> that, so I tried to convert his crasher example into an isolation test.
> It does indeed crash without Amit's fix ... but with it, lookee what
> I get:
> +error in steps c1 complexpartupdate: ERROR: unexpected table_lock_tuple status: 1
> That seems fully reproducible in this test. I haven't looked into
> exactly what's causing that, but now that we have a reproducible
> example, somebody should.
> I'm not quite sure if I should commit this as-is or wait till the
> other problem is fixed. A crash is probably worse than a bogus
> error, but I don't like committing obviously-wrong "expected" output.
Let me have a look at the testcase - I'd been running Roman's testcase
for quite a few hours without being able to reproduce. But your testcase
seems to trigger this reliably, so I hope I can make some quick
|Next Message||r.zharkov||2019-04-06 17:09:15||Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it was already committed|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-04-06 16:23:06||Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it was already committed|