Jakub Ouhrabka <jakub.ouhrabka@comgate.cz> writes:
> Tom:
>>> Looks like the disconnect was because pgbouncer restarted. If that
>>> wasn't supposed to happen then you should take it up with the
>>> pgbouncer folk.
> The restart of pgbouncer was intentional, although made by someone else,
> so the disconnect is ok. What's not ok is the "UPDATE 153" message after
> message with connection lost and the fact that the UPDATE was committed
> to database without explicit COMMIT. Maybe pgbouncer issued the commit?
The message ordering doesn't surprise me a huge amount, but the fact
that the update got committed is definitely surprising. I think
pgbouncer has to have done something strange there. We need to pull
those folk into the discussion.
regards, tom lane
