Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:49 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
On cvs head, I can get "tuple concurrently updated" if two separate
transactions are both trying to drop the same index:
ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
The reason I ask is that someone contacted me who is seeing
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:49 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> On cvs head, I can get "tuple concurrently updated" if two separate
> transactions are both trying to drop the same index:
>ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
> The reason I ask is that someone contacted me who is seeing this on a
> pro
On 7/11/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Notice that recursiveDeletion() tries to clean out pg_depend before
it actually deletes the target object, and in the current code that
object-specific subroutine is the only thing that takes any sort of lock.
In the past 4-6 months, we've seen 4
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On cvs head, I can get "tuple concurrently updated" if two separate
> transactions are both trying to drop the same index:
This seems related to the discussions we had awhile back about how
deletion needs to take locks *before* it starts doing anything.
ht
On cvs head, I can get "tuple concurrently updated" if two separate
transactions are both trying to drop the same index:
8<
contrib_regression=# create table t(f1 int);
CREATE TABLE
contrib_regression=# create index idx1 on t(f1);
CREATE INDEX
contrib_regre
