From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: deadlock while re-indexing table |
Date: | 2008-02-12 17:31:05 |
Message-ID: | 524EA782-E500-43C4-94DF-D9CCF2678929@fastcrypt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 12-Feb-08, at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Dave Cramer wrote:
>>> reindex table user_profile;
>>> ERROR: deadlock detected
>>> DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation
>>> 194689112 of database 163880909; blocked by process 31236.
>>> Process 31236 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 194689110 of
>>> database 163880909; blocked by process 32450.
>
>> I don't find this very surprising ... I would suggest using "reindex
>> index" for each index instead. I'm not sure if REINDEX TABLE is
>> supposed to be deadlock-free.
>
> It's not guaranteed to be so, but I'd think simple cases would be
> okay. What's that other process doing?
>
The other process is inserting into the user_profile table.
Dave
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-02-12 18:02:52 | Re: deadlock while re-indexing table |
Previous Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2008-02-12 17:09:54 | Re: Query using cursors using 100% CPU |