Re: Exclusive Locks Taken on User Tables?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marc <pgsql-general(at)mbreslow(dot)net>
Cc: "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Exclusive Locks Taken on User Tables?
Date: 2007-11-06 20:43:23
Message-ID: 29165.1194381803@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Marc <pgsql-general(at)mbreslow(dot)net> writes:
> Version of postgres is 8.2.4.
> ...
> second report that I always see that UPDATE statement and in the list of
> locks I see ExclusiveLock granted on the users table for one of the running
> pids but not the others.

Well, if it's not a foreign key issue then I think that the UPDATE is
blocked waiting for some previous updater of the same row to commit.
If you poke around a bit harder in pg_locks you'll probably find that
the UPDATE is waiting to acquire ShareLock on someone else's transaction
ID, and that someone else is the culprit.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-11-06 20:48:12 Re: Npsql is much faster than ODBC ?
Previous Message Marc 2007-11-06 20:25:58 Exclusive Locks Taken on User Tables?