On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.munro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Here's a patch that shows one way to fix it. I think it does make >> sense to change this, because otherwise automatic >> retry-on-serialization-failure strategies will be befuddle by this >> doomed transaction. And as you and Vitaly have said, there is >> literally no concurrent update. > > I think that you have the right idea, but we still need to fix that > buffer lock bug I mentioned... Aren't these two completely separate and independent bugs? -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
