On 05/21/2010 01:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jakub Ouhrabka <jakub.ouhra...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
