From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jason Madden <jason.madden@nextthought.com>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        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
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Jason Madden <jason.madden@nextthought.com>
	message dated "Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:42:38 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <24822.1562687102.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 11:45:02 -0400
Message-ID: <24823.1562687102@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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%40postgr=
esql.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