Re: help with locked table(s)/transactions(s)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mott Leroy <mott(at)acadaca(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: help with locked table(s)/transactions(s)
Date: 2006-02-01 14:24:11
Message-ID: 29624.1138803851@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Mott Leroy <mott(at)acadaca(dot)com> writes:
> I'm still confused by the behavior however. The locking behaves as if
> its some kind of *table* level lock, because while the function is
> executing (a long time), a dozen updates and inserts build up waiting
> for some lock to be released. If the loop just occassionally puts a lock
> on a few different rows, I don't see how that could cause the
> experienced behavior -- presumably the lock on those particular rows is
> released after its iteration through the loop. Unless, of course, the
> lock isn't given up ...

No, the locks would be held till end of transaction. It is a little odd
that you have so many conflicts, though, unless the referenced table is
pretty small and/or this loop manages to touch a large fraction of the
possible keys.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noble, Robert 2006-02-01 14:46:37 eqpg doesn't like bit fields
Previous Message Adam Witney 2006-02-01 14:19:56 Passwords when changing users -> roles