| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Paul A Vixie <vixie(at)vix(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: postmaster locks up in 7.1b3 | 
| Date: | 2001-07-15 05:00:01 | 
| Message-ID: | 8169.995173201@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs | 
Paul A Vixie <vixie(at)vix(dot)com> writes:
>> As far as Postgres is concerned, there's no deadlock here, only a slow client
> that could be true if we used explicit locks.  all our accesses are of the
> form "learn everything you need to know to do the transaction, then open the
> database, do it, and close".  there are some really long SELECT's (which make
> dns zone files) but they can't block unless the file system is blocking the
> write()'s in the client, which would only happen in NFS, which we don't use.
Well, my point was that it could happen just on the basis of the
*implicit* read lock grabbed by a SELECT.  All you'd need is a client
that's stuck partway through a transaction for some external reason.
However, it sounds like you've taken care to avoid that possibility,
so the theory does seem shaky.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-16 19:05:39 | Re: pgsql | 
| Previous Message | Paul A Vixie | 2001-07-15 03:28:03 | Re: postmaster locks up in 7.1b3 |