From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Blocking excessively in FOR UPDATE |
Date: | 2011-11-03 19:29:02 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpY+O4m9Tyqo=6En7+r-1qdMws5O_rk9MbEo-HRxAJsyMw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> But I cannot figure out which transaction it would be. There *are*, in
>> fact, connections in <idle in transaction> state, which makes me think
>> those would be the culprit. But for the life of me, I cannot make
>> sense of the pg_locks view, which shows all locks as granted:
>
> A block on a row would typically show up as one transaction waiting on
> another's XID. Did you capture this *while* the query was blocked?
Yes
> Also, I'm suspicious that you may be using a view that filters out
> the relevant lock types --- that's obviously not a raw display of
> pg_locks.
It's pgadmin, which I usually use to monitor pg_stats_activity and
pg_locks in a "pretty" view.
pg_locks does not show the query, only the pid, so it's harder to spot.
Next time I find it blocking, I will check pg_locks directly and post
the output.
I did that once, and they were all granted. I didn't correlate with
other XIDs since I thought the "granted" column meant it wasn't
waiting. Is that wrong?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-11-03 19:53:41 | Re: Blocking excessively in FOR UPDATE |
Previous Message | Jay Levitt | 2011-11-03 18:49:53 | Re: Predicates not getting pushed into SQL function? |