now that sequence names are properly quoted for field defaults, mixed
case sequence names are generated. These are properly quoted in the
CREATE SEQUENCE lines, but not in the SELECT nextval lines, as per
below:
CREATE SEQUENCE "Teams_TeamID_seq" start 10 increment 1 maxvalue
2147483647 minvalue 1 cache 1 ;
SELECT nextval ('Teams_TeamID_seq');
This needs to be:
SELECT nextval ('"Teams_TeamID_seq"');
Patch included below.
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
additional argument specifying the kind of lock to acquire/release (or
'NoLock' to do no lock processing). Ensure that all relations are locked
with some appropriate lock level before being examined --- this ensures
that relevant shared-inval messages have been processed and should prevent
problems caused by concurrent VACUUM. Fix several bugs having to do with
mismatched increment/decrement of relation ref count and mismatched
heap_open/close (which amounts to the same thing). A bogus ref count on
a relation doesn't matter much *unless* a SI Inval message happens to
arrive at the wrong time, which is probably why we got away with this
sloppiness for so long. Repair missing grab of AccessExclusiveLock in
DROP TABLE, ALTER/RENAME TABLE, etc, as noted by Hiroshi.
Recommend 'make clean all' after pulling this update; I modified the
Relation struct layout slightly.
Will post further discussion to pghackers list shortly.
See attached mail for more details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Vadim Mikheev" <vadim@krs.ru>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
References: <000201befa94$42fe04c0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp>
Subject: Re: elog(ERROR) in vacuum
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:27:10 +0900
Organization: OJSC Rostelecom (Krasnoyarsk)
Message-ID: <37D85E6E.5AFA126D@krs.ru>
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> Hello Vadim,
>
> I have a question about vacuum.
>
> VACUUM has a phase like commit which calls TransactionIdCommit().
> But if elog(ERROR) occured after that,the status of transaction is
> changed from XID_COMMIT to XID_ABORT.
>
> Seems to me this causes inconsistency.
> Shoudn't AbortTransaction() be changed not to call TransacionIdAbort()
> in case of vacuum.
You're right!
As usual -:)
Vadim
