| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)aiven(dot)io>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Tripp <peter(at)chartio(dot)com>, Virendra Negi <virendra(at)idyllic-software(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Date: | 2016-07-31 22:45:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTvq+rQSSGo3Y8Gx5+fUETnRY3BSbDtzn_Oq6Lu2SKw4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> An expression index over a function acquiring a lock looks like it
> should do the trick.
Wouldn't even that hinge upon the function knowing if it was called in
the precheck path rather than the insertion path? I think that that
might be possible, but offhand it seems messy.
> Are you looking in writing an updated patch? It seems we're on one page
> of the rough direction.
I could do that. I'll look into whether or not what you describe is
really practicable in the next couple of days. It's not obvious to me
that it is right now, although I do certainly agree that it's worth a
shot.
I think that Oskari's patch was basically solid, concerns already listed aside.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | amdjachenko | 2016-08-01 02:19:55 | BUG #14271: Please fix 13804 bug |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-07-31 22:31:46 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |