"SZŰCS Gábor" <surrano@mailbox.hu> writes:
> Q1. So is this everything that can be said -- NOTIFY calls
> simple_heap_update that is concurrently updated by a different transaction?
If that's what it is, then there's still a question: why? The notify
code has enough locking that this failure shouldn't happen. If you can
reproduce this I'd like to look into it.
regards, tom lane