From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Cherio <cherio@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17810: Update from 13.09 to 13.10 breaks SQLs with VACUUM
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:00:01 -0500
Message-ID: <391334.1677520801@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHqFkJfO3-TA4YL_O0yw8EaKTGY9+2HFAiRgHpEu8q1abvesg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <17810-8eb7b4e1b7a68e1a@postgresql.org>
<371962.1677515656@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAKHqFkJsF8TOm0UV+-4=M98hc_D5qqqxFu3AY-mOyKrPuMMswQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKHqFkJfO3-TA4YL_O0yw8EaKTGY9+2HFAiRgHpEu8q1abvesg@mail.gmail.com>
Cherio <cherio@gmail.com> writes:
> I just realized that the ramifications of this change go further than just
> VACUUM related statements in the scripts. Assume 2 scripts
> UPDATE tableA
> UPDATE tableB
> and
> UPDATE tableA
> UPDATE tableB
> Before the change they could run in parallel without issues. After the
> change this will cause one of the queries to fail due to transaction locks.
Uh ... really? Please provide evidence. AFAIK this set of changes
only affects commands that are meant to not run inside tranaction blocks.
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, cherio@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17810: Update from 13.09 to 13.10 breaks SQLs with VACUUM
In-Reply-To: <391334.1677520801@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