From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, daveg(at)sonic(dot)net |
Subject: | Re: lock AccessShareLock on object 0/1260/0 is already held |
Date: | 2013-01-04 17:10:15 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBxPvH9LxUOHRzvTkuOnX1dVJkF=VJyxaFQPbK5L3YhuA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/1/4 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> What is state of this issue?
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-09/msg00423.php
>
> AFAICS we never identified the cause. It was pretty clear that
> something was failing to clean up shared-memory lock data structures,
> but not what that something was. The last productive suggestion was
> to add process-exit-time logging of whether unreleased locks remain,
> but if Dave ever did that, he didn't report back what he found.
probably I am able to find statement, that was canceled as last
"success" statement from our application logs. And probably it will be
LOCK ... or CREATE TABLE AS SELECT
Recheck on session end can help us to drop this leaked locks, but I
don't understand how it can help with finding with finding the cause?
>
> Maybe you could add such logging on your machines.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-01-04 17:10:16 | Re: enhanced error fields |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-01-04 17:08:35 | Re: PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction |