| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jakub Ouhrabka <jakub(dot)ouhrabka(at)comgate(dot)cz> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: psql or pgbouncer bug? |
| Date: | 2010-05-21 17:32:59 |
| Message-ID: | 21303.1274463179@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Jakub Ouhrabka <jakub(dot)ouhrabka(at)comgate(dot)cz> writes:
> Tom:
>>> Looks like the disconnect was because pgbouncer restarted. If that
>>> wasn't supposed to happen then you should take it up with the
>>> pgbouncer folk.
> The restart of pgbouncer was intentional, although made by someone else,
> so the disconnect is ok. What's not ok is the "UPDATE 153" message after
> message with connection lost and the fact that the UPDATE was committed
> to database without explicit COMMIT. Maybe pgbouncer issued the commit?
The message ordering doesn't surprise me a huge amount, but the fact
that the update got committed is definitely surprising. I think
pgbouncer has to have done something strange there. We need to pull
those folk into the discussion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2010-05-21 17:35:58 | Re: psql or pgbouncer bug? |
| Previous Message | Jakub Ouhrabka | 2010-05-21 16:42:00 | Re: psql or pgbouncer bug? |