* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I havn't built a reliable test case yet but I *think* the tuple
> > concurrently updated problem is with an analyze being run inside of a
> > function and also being run by autovacuum.
> If so it should be fixed as of 8.2 --- I believe we changed the locking
> rules to ensure only one ANALYZE at a time for any one table.
> I think we've got a solution for that in 8.2, also --- at least, the
> only common case I know of should be fixed, namely where a RENAME or
> similar has caused the same table name to be assigned to a new OID.

Great!  These were on 8.1 and I was actually just working to try and
reproduce them on 8.2 (without success so far!).  I'll see about
upgrading the production systems to 8.2 soon and will let ya'll know if
I see them again there.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to