From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Bauer" <peter(dot)m(dot)bauer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Overload after some minutes, please help! |
Date: | 2006-10-21 03:57:57 |
Message-ID: | 21172.1161403077@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Peter Bauer" <peter(dot)m(dot)bauer(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> we have a theory for the root of all evil which causes a reproducable
> deadlock which is not detected by Postgre:
> The DELETE statement contains a select which waits for a sharelock
> (according to pg_locks and pg_stat_activity) on rows locked by the
> UPDATE statement. The UPDATE itself waits to get a lock for some rows
> which are exclusively locked by the DELETE statement (got from its
> sub-SELECT).
> What do you think about this theory?
Not much. It's been years since anyone found a bug in the deadlock
detector; if you want us to believe you have an undetected deadlock,
you'll need more evidence than an unsupported assertion.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-21 04:02:32 | Re: why not kill -9 postmaster |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2006-10-21 03:43:51 | old duplicate emails |