| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Strange behavior with pg_locks and partitioning |
| Date: | 2012-06-15 16:48:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYyxwwAL5k1dAcwAtUkNYfZepAPEAkydducsjD2icYy6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> In the course of debugging why a particular server required increasing
> max_locks_per_transation, I found a peculiar behavior. If you do an
> UPDATE which doesn't match any CE constraint on the parent table in an
> inheritance chain, you get a RowExclusiveLock on every partition and
> every index on every partition. However, these rowexclusivelocks have
> no page or tuple reference; it's a RowExclusiveLock with no row.
>
> Is this intentional?
RowExclusiveLock is a type of table lock, not a lock on a row.
You're going to get that on all tables (and their indexes) involved in
any write query.
So it sounds unsurprising to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-15 17:04:52 | Re: Saving snapshots for later use |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-06-15 16:42:06 | Strange behavior with pg_locks and partitioning |