On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> So the problem seems to be confirmed to exist, but be of low probability >> and low consequences, in back branches. I think we only need to fix it in >> HEAD. The lock acquisition and status recheck that I proposed before >> should be sufficient. > > Thanks for digging into this. I failed to notice while reviewing that > the way we were printing the message had changed a bit in the new > code, and I just totally overlooked the existing locking hazards. > Oops.
Sorry for the late reply. In order to reproduce the failure I have just inserted a manual pg_usleep before looping through the list of orphan_oids, and after dropping manually from another session a couple of orphaned temporary tables I was able to see the failure. Attached is a proposal of patch. -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers