On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Pitts <jpitts@bplglobal.net> writes:
>> My guess is that I am not provoking a 'SI queue overrun'=20
>=20
> The 100 temp table creations probably will do that just fine.
>=20
Is there a way to verify this?
>> Am I completely off base about how this should be reproducing?
>=20
> Two points: the session you hope to have crash *must* be in serializable
> mode,
The 2 competing sessions doing the read/modify sequence on foo are set to S=
ERIALIZABLE.
> and the crash would actually happen in the transaction after the
> one that's rolled back.
>=20
I don't follow. Are you suggesting I begin another transaction on connectio=
n 1 with a read, and that
would provoke the crash?
> The error doesn't have to be a serialization error, so in principle
> you should be able to make it fail with something as simple as
>=20
> begin;
> select 1/0;
> rollback;
> select * from foo;
>=20
> as long as the ROLLBACK is done with a prepared statement and you've
> forced a SI overrun since the ROLLBACK was prepared.
>=20
> regards, tom lane
