From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Brian Cox <brian(dot)cox(at)ca(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "slow" queries |
Date: | 2009-03-01 17:05:51 |
Message-ID: | 12688.1235927151@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Brian Cox <brian(dot)cox(at)ca(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, they're all deadlocked. The question is why?
Probably because the DROP is trying to acquire exclusive lock on its
target table, and some other transaction already has a read or write
lock on that table, and everything else is queuing up behind the DROP.
It's not a true deadlock that is visible to the database, or else
Postgres would have failed enough of the transactions to remove the
deadlock. Rather, what you've got is some very-long-running transaction
that is still making progress, or else is sitting idle because its
client is neglecting to close it; and everything else is blocked behind
that.
If it is not clear to you exactly who is waiting for what, a look into
the pg_locks view might help.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Linos | 2009-03-01 17:32:28 | Re: TCP network cost |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-03-01 03:32:57 | Re: Bad plan for nested loop + limit |