Willy-Bas Loos wrote:
> ah, of course.
> the exclusive lock was preventing tty1 to read "test", and when the lock
> was gone, so was the table.
> I get it. Thanks a lot.
>
> But, what about the "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated" ? (in TTY3)
Same thing - tty1 was locking that entry and when it was released, tty3
tried to update it. The error message isn't great but both tty1 (which
did drop the table) and tty3 which tried to drop the table are doing the
same thing.
> What should have happened, i guess, is "ERROR: table "test" does not
> exist, upon " drop table test; --4. ..."
> Which tuple was concurrently updated? A pg_catalog entry that
> administers the table?
No idea - I guess something like that :)
--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/