| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | CONCHY Elisabeth <elisabeth(dot)conchy(at)dgfip(dot)finances(dot)gouv(dot)fr>, Henri KY <sideuxb-ky(dot)consultant(at)dgfip(dot)finances(dot)gouv(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14874: Dublicate values in primary key |
| Date: | 2017-10-28 03:56:57 |
| Message-ID: | 5072.1509163017@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> I agree with your conclusion, but I still think that it's slightly
> ambiguous. There didn't seem to be an issue with sequences going
> backwards -- the actual complaint was about there being multiple
> versions of the same logical row visible simultaneously (sequences
> were mentioned in passing). This is probably a case of tuples within a
> HOT chain experiencing some kind of "resurrection". Though that in
> itself doesn't prove much of anything.
Yeah, I wondered about that, particularly in view of the multiple
tuple-freezing bugs we've found. If the damage were in just one table
I'd believe it for sure ... but I'm not sure I believe it across 5
tables.
But the bottom line is the same: update to 9.4.latest (which is *not*
12 btw), and double-check storage reliability.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2017-10-28 08:22:29 | Re: pg_trgm word_similarity inconsistencies or bug |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-28 03:14:56 | Re: BUG #14876: Segmentation fault with JSONB column used in store proc that gets used by view and later altered |