From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | azhwkd <azhwkd(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: query locks up when run concurrently |
Date: | 2016-11-24 21:34:11 |
Message-ID: | 6d6fb86f-cfde-e713-c400-26bf01f53890@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/24/2016 01:23 PM, azhwkd wrote:
> It should not be possible because a group does not return to the
> update pool before the update hasn't finished.
So what is this 'update pool' and what is driving/using it?
In other words how is the determination of the parameters done?
To be more specific, the implication is that a group id can be reused so
what determines that?
> I watched the queries in a postgres client and there was no overlap I could see.
Was this a visual inspection or did you dump the results of the various
query/parameter combinations into tables and do an SQL comparison?
> I don't really know what to make from this behavior, sometimes when I
> start the application a few updates go through and eventually it will
> lock up completely and sometimes it locks up immediately - always with
Is there a common thread with regard to the parameters in use when
things lock up?
> heap_hot_search_buffer using ~20 of all CPU time on the system.
>
> 2016-11-24 19:14 GMT+01:00 Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>:
>> On 11/23/2016 10:41 PM, azhwkd wrote:
>>>
>>> The group ID is part of the primary key of the group_history table. My
>>> understanding is that two INSERTs with different group IDs should not
>>> collide in this case, or am I wrong in thinking this?
>>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | azhwkd | 2016-11-24 22:14:15 | Re: query locks up when run concurrently |
Previous Message | azhwkd | 2016-11-24 21:23:55 | Re: query locks up when run concurrently |