On 2022-Nov-24, Dimos Stamatakis wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback!
> I applied the patch to print more information about the error. Here’s what I got:
>
> 2022-11-23 20:33:03 UTC [638 test_database]: [5458] ERROR: new multixact has more than one updating member: 0
2[248477(nokeyupd), 248645 (nokeyupd)]
> 2022-11-23 20:33:03 UTC [638 test_database]: [5459] STATEMENT: UPDATE warehouse1
> SET w_ytd = w_ytd + 498
> WHERE w_id = 5
>
> I then inspected the WAL and I found the log records for these 2 transactions:
>
> …
> rmgr: MultiXact len (rec/tot): 54/ 54, tx: 248477, lsn: 0/66DB82A8, prev 0/66DB8260, desc: CREATE_ID 133
offset265 nmembers 2: 248477 (nokeyupd) 248500 (keysh)
> rmgr: Heap len (rec/tot): 70/ 70, tx: 248477, lsn: 0/66DB82E0, prev 0/66DB82A8, desc: HOT_UPDATE
off20 xmax 133 flags 0x20 IS_MULTI EXCL_LOCK ; new off 59 xmax 132, blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/16385 blk 422
> rmgr: Transaction len (rec/tot): 34/ 34, tx: 248477, lsn: 0/66DBA710, prev 0/66DBA6D0, desc: ABORT
2022-11-2320:33:03.712298 UTC
> …
> rmgr: Transaction len (rec/tot): 34/ 34, tx: 248645, lsn: 0/66DBB060, prev 0/66DBB020, desc: ABORT
2022-11-2320:33:03.712388 UTC
Ah, it seems clear enough: the transaction that aborted after having
updated the tuple, is still considered live when doing the second
update. That sounds wrong.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Puedes vivir sólo una vez, pero si lo haces bien, una vez es suficiente"
