Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Greg" == Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes:
> Greg> Either of two things are true.
> Greg> Either transaction 6179 committed,
> [snip]
> This is all missing the point. The row should have been killed by
> transaction 4971, NOT 6179. By the time transaction 6179 tried to
> do anything with it, it was almost certainly already broken (or
> possibly 6179 broke it).
If there have been any crashes in this database, the problem might be
a variant of Jeff Ross' issue --- to wit, the row killed by
transaction 4971 actually is dead (and its associated toast items
have been removed), but that row is still found by seqscans because
of an incorrect PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
