| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kris Kiger <kris(at)musicrebellion(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrency |
| Date: | 2005-05-09 21:46:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1937.1115675189@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... usually. We will promote later arrivals in front of older ones if
>> the alternative would be a deadlock (eg, the later one already holds
>> some lock that would block the earlier one).
> Thats part of deadlock detection? I had thought we just blew one away...
Only after deciding that there's no way to rearrange the lock queues to
eliminate the deadlock.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | users jtech softwares | 2005-05-10 08:58:12 | Extracting rowid of a locked row. |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-05-09 21:38:35 | Re: Concurrency |