On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 12:21 -0500, Kris Kiger wrote:
> >> Quick question. I lock a table, call it table X, and then issue two
> >> updates on that table. The two updates are left waiting. I then unlock
> >> the table. The two updates go through. My question is, is there a
> >> predictable way to determine which query will be executed first?
> > The lock queue is served in FIFO sequence.
> ... usually. We will promote later arrivals in front of older ones if
> the alternative would be a deadlock (eg, the later one already holds
> some lock that would block the earlier one).
Thats part of deadlock detection? I had thought we just blew one away...
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-05-09 21:46:29|
|Subject: Re: Concurrency |
|Previous:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2005-05-09 19:48:12|
|Subject: Re: conversion security update may have slowed our system?|