diff options
| author | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2016-10-23 18:36:13 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2016-10-23 18:36:13 -0400 |
| commit | 65d85b8f9dc3768b3b5bf59187620e9c7cafcb47 (patch) | |
| tree | 22786858b17d6da591b6b53f1835a12ff4efb588 /src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | |
| parent | 913e7e5983ff4b544879845af5305f70a4fa6277 (diff) | |
| download | postgresql-65d85b8f9dc3768b3b5bf59187620e9c7cafcb47.tar.gz postgresql-65d85b8f9dc3768b3b5bf59187620e9c7cafcb47.zip | |
Don't throw serialization errors for self-conflicts in INSERT ON CONFLICT.
A transaction that conflicts against itself, for example
INSERT INTO t(pk) VALUES (1),(1) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
should behave the same regardless of isolation level. It certainly
shouldn't throw a serialization error, as retrying will not help.
We got this wrong due to the ON CONFLICT logic not considering the case,
as reported by Jason Dusek.
Core of this patch is by Peter Geoghegan (based on an earlier patch by
Thomas Munro), though I didn't take his proposed code refactoring for fear
that it might have unexpected side-effects. Test cases by Thomas Munro
and myself.
Report: <CAO3NbwOycQjt2Oqy2VW-eLTq2M5uGMyHnGm=RNga4mjqcYD7gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Related-Discussion: <57EE93C8.8080504@postgrespro.ru>
Diffstat (limited to 'src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 13 |
1 files changed, 11 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c index 1e4e53b013d..9d10467303c 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c @@ -178,9 +178,18 @@ ExecCheckHeapTupleVisible(EState *estate, return; if (!HeapTupleSatisfiesVisibility(tuple, estate->es_snapshot, buffer)) - ereport(ERROR, - (errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE), + { + /* + * We should not raise a serialization failure if the conflict is + * against a tuple inserted by our own transaction, even if it's not + * visible to our snapshot. (This would happen, for example, if + * conflicting keys are proposed for insertion in a single command.) + */ + if (!TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId(HeapTupleHeaderGetXmin(tuple->t_data))) + ereport(ERROR, + (errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE), errmsg("could not serialize access due to concurrent update"))); + } } /* |