From: | Vincent de Phily <vincent(dot)dephily(at)mobile-devices(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Receiving many more rows than expected |
Date: | 2014-05-14 14:01:03 |
Message-ID: | 4429710.zqR3dEscBt@moltowork |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Friday 09 May 2014 08:36:04 David G Johnston wrote:
> This seems to likely be the same, still open, bug reported previously:
>
> No Number Assigned:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANCipfpfzoYnOz5jj=UZ70_R=CwDHv36dqWSpw
> si27vpm1z5sA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
> #8464
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/E1VN53g-0002Iy-Il@wrigleys.postgresql.o
> rg
>
> #8470 is referenced in the first thread as well...though that is
> specifically a performance issue and not a query bug.
>
> The recommended work-around is to move the sub-query using the "FOR UPDATE"
> into a CTE.
Thanks for those pointers, it certainly looks like the same issue (the only
difference being the size of the limit) and there has been a good amount of
discussion there.
I'll try the CTE workaround, although that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
From the discussions in the 1st thread, I wonder wether raising the isolation
level to repeatable read would also fix the issue ?
In any case, testing will take time because the bug triggers less than once a
day and I haven't yet managed to reproduce it locally.
ps: sorry I'm only seeing your answer now, it helps if you cc me when
answering the list.
--
Vincent de Phily
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Fabel | 2014-05-14 16:47:45 | Re: LDAP authentication not working |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-05-14 10:53:07 | Re: LDAP authentication not working |