Added to TODO.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is this a TODO?
>
> Yes. Maybe
>
> * Acquire lock on a relation before building a relcache entry for it
>
> I'm not quite sure yet how th
Is this a TODO?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 11584078 deleted while still in
> > use
>
> > I've been unable to come up with a test case that will
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 13:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Found another:
> > ERROR: cannot find attribute 2 of relation pg_temp_12100_0
>
> Can you reproduce that?
>
> It could be that this just represents someone's temp table deletion
> committing while VACUUM is
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Found another:
> ERROR: cannot find attribute 2 of relation pg_temp_12100_0
Can you reproduce that?
It could be that this just represents someone's temp table deletion
committing while VACUUM is partway through trying to build a relcache
entry to open the
Found another:
ERROR: cannot find attribute 2 of relation pg_temp_12100_0
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 11:33, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Ok, fair enough -- I agree that we should treat the two cases
> > > differently.
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, fair enough -- I agree that we should treat the two cases
> > differently. But one thing I think we should do in any case is improve
> > the wording of the error message.
>
> Got a suggestion?
Change: Relatio
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, fair enough -- I agree that we should treat the two cases
> differently. But one thing I think we should do in any case is improve
> the wording of the error message.
Got a suggestion?
regards, tom lane
---
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 11584078 deleted while still in
> use
> I've been unable to come up with a test case that will cause the
> problem, seems to be timing related. The queries that are currently
> running when these errors occur do a l
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But relation "a" *does* exist at the start of client 2's operation.
> While I'm not here to defend the exact phrasing of this error message,
> it does seem to me that it's appropriate to give a different error
> message than what appears when the table wasn't
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> client 1:
> CREATE TABLE a (b int);
> BEGIN;
> DROP TABLE a;
> -- wait
> client 2:
> SELECT * FROM a;
> client 1:
> COMMIT;
> Now, client 2 will receive "RelationClearRelation: relation 25172
> deleted while still in use", rather than "Relation "a" do
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 15:38, Neil Conway wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 11584078 deleted while still in
> > use
>
> I was going to report a similar error that arises in a different
> situation:
Probably a different look at the same pro
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 11584078 deleted while still in
> use
I was going to report a similar error that arises in a different
situation:
client 1:
CREATE TABLE a (b int);
BEGIN;
DROP TABLE a;
-- wait
client 2:
SELECT * FROM a;
client
ERROR: RelationClearRelation: relation 11584078 deleted while still in
use
I've been unable to come up with a test case that will cause the
problem, seems to be timing related. The queries that are currently
running when these errors occur do a lot or work with temp tables that
are frequently t
13 matches
Mail list logo
