| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CIC and deadlocks |
| Date: | 2007-03-31 15:38:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5980.1175355510@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ?
Can you give a specific example? The deadlock code will grant locks
out-of-order in cases where the alternative is to abort somebody.
I think you may be describing a missed opportunity in that logic,
more than a reason to add still another fragile assumption for HOT.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-03-31 15:46:03 | Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout |
| Previous Message | korryd | 2007-03-31 13:34:16 | Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, I know) forPQexecf() |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-31 15:51:20 | Re: COPY-able sql log outputs |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-03-31 14:09:18 | Re: COPY-able sql log outputs |