From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jakub Ouhrabka <jakub(dot)ouhrabka(at)comgate(dot)cz>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql or pgbouncer bug? |
Date: | 2010-05-21 17:35:58 |
Message-ID: | 4BF6C47E.7050200@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 05/21/2010 01:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
yeah - I don't think pgbouncer would cause that behaviour on its own
given the provided information so I would kinda suspect that the update
was in fact never commited though that is not what the OP saw...
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nelson da Silva da Silva | 2010-05-22 03:39:28 | Ola |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-21 17:32:59 | Re: psql or pgbouncer bug? |