From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: App very unresponsive while performing simple update |
Date: | 2006-05-28 21:32:19 |
Message-ID: | 159.1148851939@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> And what PG version is this? Alvaro fixed the
>> foreign-keys-take-exclusive-locks problem in 8.1 ...
> Except I don't think this is taking an exclusive lock at all. The original
> post had the deadlock detection fire on a SharedLock.
Yeah, but it was a ShareLock on a transaction ID, which is the trace
of something doing XactLockTableWait, which is only done if we're
blocking on a locked or updated-but-uncommitted row.
Since Brendan says he's using 8.1, the FK theory is out, and I think
what this probably is is a garden-variety deadlock on tuple updates, ie,
two concurrent transactions tried to update the same tuples in different
orders.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erwin Brandstetter | 2006-05-28 21:56:27 | Re: Query performance |
Previous Message | Brendan Duddridge | 2006-05-28 19:17:07 | Re: App very unresponsive while performing simple update |