| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Campbell <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Deadlock with pg_dump? |
| Date: | 2006-11-21 04:40:15 |
| Message-ID: | 24865.1164084015@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Chris Campbell <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com> writes:
> On Oct 26, 2006, at 17:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And what was 1171 doing? I really doubt that either of these could
>> have been pg_dump.
> I know that process 1120 is a Java client (Hibernate) running an
> UPDATE query, but I have no idea what 1171 is. I doubt that 1171 was
> pg_dump, but when we turn off the pg_dump cron jobs (for 12-ish
> hours), the deadlocks go away. We usually see 5 or 6 deadlocks spread
> throughout the day. That's not definitive evidence, of course, but
> it's certainly curious.
FWIW, we recently found a deadlock risk that's likely to be triggered in
situations involving multiple updates and foreign keys. I still don't
see any connection to pg_dump, but otherwise it seems like it might be
related to your problem. Try this patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-11/msg00121.php
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-11-21 04:54:23 | Re: Statistics visibility in SERIALIZABLE transactions |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-11-21 04:13:50 | Re: quick review |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2006-11-21 06:44:12 | Re: [PATCHES] replication docs: split single vs. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-11-21 03:52:37 | Re: patch of Encoding problem |