From: | Chris Campbell <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Deadlock with pg_dump? |
Date: | 2006-10-26 22:11:59 |
Message-ID: | B02948E2-6FC5-485F-B9F6-51F35246EEA5@bignerdranch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Oct 26, 2006, at 17:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> And what was 1171 doing? I really doubt that either of these could
> have
> been pg_dump.
I know that process 1120 is a Java client (Hibernate) running an
UPDATE query, but I have no idea what 1171 is. I doubt that 1171 was
pg_dump, but when we turn off the pg_dump cron jobs (for 12-ish
hours), the deadlocks go away. We usually see 5 or 6 deadlocks spread
throughout the day. That's not definitive evidence, of course, but
it's certainly curious.
> Given that you appear to be running 8.1 (tut-tut for not saying), it
> really shouldn't be a foreign key problem either. I'm betting these
> are just flat out conflicting updates of the same row(s).
Yeah, 8.1.3. Sorry about the omission.
Is there additional logging information I can turn on to get more
details? I guess I need to see exactly what locks both processes
hold, and what queries they were running when the deadlock occurred?
Is that easily done, without turning on logging for *all* statements?
Thanks!
- Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2006-10-26 22:26:40 | Re: Replication documentation addition |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-26 21:59:14 | Re: plperl/plperlu interaction |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-26 22:29:11 | Re: Deadlock with pg_dump? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-26 21:37:47 | Re: GUC description cleanup |