From: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: Bug with concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE (?) |
Date: | 2025-06-26 15:27:37 |
Message-ID: | 22e30eaa-597e-48a8-81a9-77522c3f7b62@uni-muenster.de |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
On 26.06.25 17:08, Daniil Davydov wrote:
> Hi,
> I found that this command sequence leads to an error. :
>
> session 1:
> begin;
> create or replace function *some funcion*;
>
> session 2:
> begin;
> create or replace function *same function as above*;
>
> session 1:
> commit;
>
> session 2:
> ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint
> "pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index"
>
> Error causes, because both transactions check catcache, decide that
> function doesn't exist and then try to insert appropriate tuples into
> pg_proc and its index (which has a unique constraint).
> I found thread [1] in which Robert Haas said that this behaviour is
> wrong, but nobody has enough time to fix it.
>
> My question is, can we consider this behavior to be a mistake or a
> normal occurrence?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4B9EA2FD.8090902%40agliodbs.com
Not entirely sure it's related (different error message), but a similar
problem was mentioned in this thread[1]
Best, Jim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-06-26 16:05:47 | Re: Documentation fix on pgbench \aset command |
Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2025-06-26 15:16:10 | [PATCH] Add tests for binaryheap.c |