Re: Debugging deadlocks

From: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
To: Guy Rouillier <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Debugging deadlocks
Date: 2005-03-27 08:37:44
Message-ID: 20050327083744.GA46661@winnie.fuhr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:54:28AM -0600, Guy Rouillier wrote:
> I'm getting the following in the server log:
>
> 2005-03-27 06:04:21 GMT estat DETAIL: Process 20928 waits for ShareLock
> on transaction 7751823; blocked by process 20929.
> Process 20929 waits for ShareLock on transaction 7768115;
> blocked by process 20928.
> 2005-03-27 06:04:21 GMT estat CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT 1 FROM
> ONLY "rumba"."service_plane" x WHERE "service_plane_id" = $1 FOR UPDATE
> OF x"
...
> The service_plane table is a reference table, i.e., a fixed set of
> values used only to validate foreign keys. So the code doesn't have any
> update statements on that table. I'm assuming PostgreSQL is generating
> that SQL to validate the foreign key. But why is it selecting for
> update?

To make sure the referenced key can't change until the transaction
completes and the referencing row becomes visible to other transactions
(or is rolled back) -- otherwise other transactions could change
or delete the referenced key and not know they'd be breaking your
referential integrity. The current implementation supports only
exclusive row-level locks (SELECT FOR UPDATE), but I think Alvaro
might be working on shared row-level locks for a future release.

--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qingqing Zhou 2005-03-27 09:38:05 Re: Debugging deadlocks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-03-27 07:49:07 Re: Major Performance issue