Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com> writes:
> I suspect I've answered my own question while preparing the test case. Is it
> the use of pg_get_serial_sequence at the bottom of the transaction? If so,
> why does it only have a problem when there is an update to credit_card_audit
> in the transaction?
No, I think it's that you've got a plpgsql trigger function that
contains queries referring to credit_card_audit. Dropping and
recreating that table invalidates plpgsql's cached plans for those
queries.
We do have in mind to fix this (Neil Conway was poking at it, last
I heard) but it won't happen before 8.2 at the earliest. In the
meantime I'm wondering why you are insistent on dropping and recreating
credit_card_audit, as opposed to something less invasive like TRUNCATE.
regards, tom lane
