Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Stuart Bishop
Subject Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1
Date
Msg-id g0g9sur7hrudzo9ar3UYAxe124vaj_firegpg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1
Re: attempted to lock invisible tuple - PG 8.4.1
List pgsql-general

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Stuart Bishop wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Alban Hertroys
>> <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>
>> > A similar issue was discussed just recently here:
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2009-09/msg01219.php
>> >
>> > That issue involved cursors though (and a serializable isolation level, but
>> > you have that). Do you have any triggers that use cursors on the table that
>> > the update fails for?
>>
>> There is a trigger on that table, and it is certainly the culprit as
>> can be seen here (different table, same trigger):
>
> I don't think the committed patch touches anything involved in what
> you're testing, but if you could grab CVS tip from the 8.4 branch (or
> the snapshot from ftp.postgresql.org:/pub/snapshot/stable/8.4 ) and give
> it a try, that'd be great.

I trigger the same error with a freshly built snapshot.


-- 
Stuart Bishop <stuart@stuartbishop.net>
http://www.stuartbishop.net/


Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: numeric field overflow
Next
From: Scott Ribe
Date:
Subject: Re: numeric field overflow