Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hBNFa-00072M-D4 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 17:31:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hBNFY-0003Nh-6Z for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 17:31:04 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hBNFX-0003J0-Pg for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 17:31:03 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hBNFV-0008Om-9y for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2019 17:31:02 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x32HUu9l002121; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 13:30:56 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru, Alvaro Herrera , pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it was already committed In-reply-to: <20190402171714.6mlldbvm32w727lk@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <30650.1554219866@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190402155108.GA17787@alvherre.pgsql> <20190402161320.o5wkbp7evuzqe4c2@alap3.anarazel.de> <1492.1554225238@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190402171714.6mlldbvm32w727lk@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Tue, 02 Apr 2019 10:17:14 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2119.1554226256.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 13:30:56 -0400 Message-ID: <2120.1554226256@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2019-04-02 13:13:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> FWIW, I see six potential candidates, not two: > These have an explicit case / separate error for TM_Invisible (= 1 - > which is the status we're seeing according to the error message) > though. So afaict they can't be relevant here. Oh, right, so it has to be from one of the calls in nodeModifyTable.c. But it's hardly plausible that that runs post-commit. So now I'm thinking that what we really need to know is why a TM_Invisible result was returned. That's going to be a bit harder ... regards, tom lane