> On Sep 4, 2026, at 20:43, dinesh kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > Thanks for the clarification. There were no parallel sessions while we > deleted those records. > > It was a single session and a single transaction only. > > If the transaction was aborted for any reason, like ERROR or FATAL (I assume > the connection will close or reset, starting a new session), then the > previous state of the transaction and session will also be rolled back, > right? > > This is the behaviour we regularly see. However, as you see in the reported > cases above, this rollback was not occurring. > > After FATAL, > > We started a new transaction, > > It executed the previous transaction's statement (which was aborted due to > idle timeout) as a single statement (with autocommit). Is this the correct > behaviour? No Right ?
It's very unlikely that there is a bug in this area. I suspect that statements are being delivered out of order from how they appear. My suggestion is to set log_min_statement_duration to 0 to capture a few incidents of this, so you can see what the actual sequencing of the statements is.
