| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Augustin Amann <augustin(at)waw(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Update / Lock (and ShareLock) question |
| Date: | 2008-07-11 14:51:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3888.1215787890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Augustin Amann <augustin(at)waw(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane a crit :
>> What that really means is that the first process is waiting for a row
>> lock that's held by the second one --- that is, it's trying to update a
>> row that the second transaction has updated and not yet committed.
> I understand. But a dead lock is for me, a situation that sould not
> appear, event if the storage is slow ... I'm wrong ?
If you're getting deadlocks on these, then what you have is two
concurrent transactions trying to update the same two tuples in
different orders. Which is a classic deadlock case, and the only
fix is to fix your app so that multiple updates are done in some
consistent order --- or broken into multiple transactions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-11 15:34:35 | Re: view row-level locks |
| Previous Message | Francisco Reyes | 2008-07-11 14:47:56 | Default fill factor for tables? |