| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ri_LockPKTuple misleading message |
| Date: | 2026-04-27 04:51:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqGF_myog4OcQ+39CnFzS8iODS+YeGDNw9UfU_OxyNjvcA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andres,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 10:38 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2026-04-25 20:59:50 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 20:42 Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 7:31 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > I have a feeling we should also update ExecLockRows(), since the
> > > TM_Deleted branches in other places seem to use the wording
> > > "concurrent delete".
> > >
> > > cc andres since he was the original author of this code.
> > >
> > >
> > > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL_12_STABLE/src/backend/executor/nodeLockRows.c#L230
> >
> > Ah, OK, then let's change both instances for consistency, unless Andres
> > remembers a reason not to.
> >
> > Thanks Junwang for checking that.
>
> No, I can't see any reason for that. I assume it was a copy & paste error,
> but it's hard to know this far back.
Thanks for chiming in.
Here is a patch to fix both instances. I'll leave the ExecLockRows()
instances unchanged in the back-branches due to the lack of user
complaints.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Use-concurrent-delete-in-serialization-error-for-.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2026-04-27 04:52:43 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2026-04-27 04:46:37 | RE: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |