On 05/21/2010 01:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
yeah - I don't think pgbouncer would cause that behaviour on its own
given the provided information so I would kinda suspect that the update
was in fact never commited though that is not what the OP saw...
Stefan
