From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jason Madden <jason.madden@nextthought.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15720: `executor could not find named tuplestore ABC` in AFTER DELETE trigger referencing OLD TABLE as ABC
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 11:45:02 -0400
Message-ID: <24823.1562687102@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <27B30574-291E-4C33-B89F-B690FB6CA492@nextthought.com>
References: <15720-38c2b29e5d720187@postgresql.org>
<CA+hUKGJbSd1fxUXwbV2Cvf_wE4gL9vWO3B38FB+1R_j7MzQ9hA@mail.gmail.com>
<27B30574-291E-4C33-B89F-B690FB6CA492@nextthought.com>
Jason Madden <jason.madden@nextthought.com> writes:
> I hope that at least begins to answer your question. Thanks for thinking about this!
FYI, we're now thinking that the problem here is unrelated to partitions
but instead is a bug in EPQ, which is a subsystem that's entered only when
a row to be locked/updated is found to have just been updated by some
concurrent transaction. See
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/15900-bc482754fe8d7415%40postgresql.org
If you're in a position to build a custom version of Postgres, you
might try whether the patch proposed in that thread resolves your
problem.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jason.madden@nextthought.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #15720: `executor could not find named tuplestore ABC` in AFTER DELETE trigger referencing OLD TABLE as ABC
In-Reply-To: <24823.1562687102@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox