>> In order to encounter this issue, I'd need to have two concurrent >> processes update the child records of the same parent record? That is: >> >> A ---> B1 >> \---> B2 >> >> ... and the issue should only happen if I update both B1 and B2 >> concurrently in separate sessions? > > I don't think that'll trigger it. You need rows that are first key share > locked and then updated by the locking transaction. Under > concurrency. And the timewindow really is rather small..
Well, currently I have a test which locks A and B1, then updates B1 (twice, actually), and then updates A. However, since there's a lock on A, there's no concurrent updating of B1 and B2. This is based on the behavior of the queue where I originally saw the problem, but it doesn't reproduce the bug. I'm thinking I need to just lock B1, update B1, then A, while allowing a concurrent session to update B2 and and A. No? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
