On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> 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?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: