Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> I agree with your conclusion, but I still think that it's slightly
> ambiguous. There didn't seem to be an issue with sequences going
> backwards -- the actual complaint was about there being multiple
> versions of the same logical row visible simultaneously (sequences
> were mentioned in passing). This is probably a case of tuples within a
> HOT chain experiencing some kind of "resurrection". Though that in
> itself doesn't prove much of anything.
Yeah, I wondered about that, particularly in view of the multiple
tuple-freezing bugs we've found. If the damage were in just one table
I'd believe it for sure ... but I'm not sure I believe it across 5
tables.
But the bottom line is the same: update to 9.4.latest (which is *not*
12 btw), and double-check storage reliability.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
