| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Gavin M(dot) Roy" <gmr(at)myyearbook(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.3.0 Core with concurrent vacuum fulls |
| Date: | 2008-03-05 10:46:07 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0803050246j7994259es5fa37dfc2fbf9343@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Two backends try to vacuum full two different catalog tables. Each acquires an
> exclusive lock on the respective catalog relation. Then each try to
> initialize its
> own catalog cache. But to do that they need AccessShareLock on each other's
> table leading to a deadlock.
>
Well I could reproduce the above mentioned deadlock scenario with two system
relations. So that validates the theory.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-03-05 13:57:00 | Re: CopyReadLineText optimization |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-03-05 10:11:53 | Re: 8.3.0 Core with concurrent vacuum fulls |