From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sachin Kotwal <kotsachin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why postgres take RowExclusiveLock on all partition |
Date: | 2016-09-23 00:57:48 |
Message-ID: | 20160923005748.GD18637@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:56:39PM +0530, Sachin Kotwal wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> What I understood from this https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/
> explicit-locking.html#TABLE-LOCK-COMPATIBILITY
> is :
>
> The RowExclusiveLock conflicts with queries want SHARE, SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE,
> EXCLUSIVE ACCESS EXCLUSIVE locks.
>
> In one of our customer environment we want do some DDL operation everyday
> through cronjobs . This cronjobs get blocked by RowExclusiveLock lock taken by
> UPDATE query. And then lot more queries are waiting on this cronjob as sqls
> under cronjob have hold ACCESS EXCLUSIVE on related tables involved in other
> select queries.
>
>
> If we can not reduce locking in partition scenario, then it is fine. We can
> consider this is limitation of PostgreSQL or any other RDBMS system.
We can't have DDL happening while a table is being accessed. I guess we
could drop the lock once we are done with the partition but we don't
currently do that, and it would be complicated.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-23 01:20:23 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-09-22 23:44:30 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |