Re: How to prevent vacuum and reindex from deadlocking.

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org>
Cc: gearond(at)cvc(dot)net, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How to prevent vacuum and reindex from deadlocking.
Date: 2003-08-13 05:45:07
Message-ID: 20030813054507.GA3078@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:06:04PM -0600, Robert Creager wrote:

> Thanks for point that out to me. I dare say that the BEGIN documentation is
> unclear to me, even knowing what I know now. Why not just explictly say "Nested
> transactions are not supported", rather than "... The current transaction is
> not affected". Alright, maybe I still read at Junior High level.

You have to keep in mind that inside PL/pgSQL, the "BEGIN" keyword has a
different meaning, unrelated to the BEGIN keyword in SQL. In PL/pgSQL,
BEGIN starts a code block, and has nothing to do at all with
transactions.

(I _think_ the original question had something to do with a PL/pgSQL
function -- if this is not the case, please ignore.)

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"La espina, desde que nace, ya pincha" (Proverbio africano)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jade 2003-08-13 07:57:49 postgres as an snmp client
Previous Message Mark Mikulec 2003-08-13 05:44:20 Re: Help! Can't pg_dump anything: handler procedure for procedural language plpgsql not found