| From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: deadlock in single-row select-for-update + update scenario? How could it happen? |
| Date: | 2014-08-22 17:51:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAKrjmhfW7PO5CaH=XqiZ6Nr566pww=MkmUmEPcTrq2RU0iMsjg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> You have not shown us the full sequence of events leading up to the
> deadlock failure, but I hypothesize that there were yet other transactions
> that updated that same row in the very recent past. That might allow
> there to be more than one tuple lock involved (ie, locks on different
> versions of the row), which would create some scope for a deadlock
> failure.
>
Well, showing all events is difficult due to parallelization of importer,
but shouldn't "select for update" solve the problem of other locks?
The transactions are exactly as shown - select for update and then update.
depesz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2014-08-22 17:54:25 | Re: deadlock in single-row select-for-update + update scenario? How could it happen? |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2014-08-22 17:50:44 | Re: deadlock in single-row select-for-update + update scenario? How could it happen? |