From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Dorochevsky,Michel" <michel(dot)dorochevsky(at)softcon(dot)de>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k o b j e ct |
Date: | 2007-04-23 19:18:15 |
Message-ID: | 12242.1177355895@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
>> Yeah, this is great, particularly since it includes the OIDs. However,
>> the OIDs don't seem to entirely match up with the LOCK_DEBUG output.
>> I'm wondering if somehow we're locking the wrong OIDs?
This may be a false alarm --- I had forgotten that relation locks are
taken at Parse or Bind time, hence the lock-grabbing associated with a
given command will be logged *before* the exec_execute_message log
entry. Still sifting through the log, but thought I'd better mention
this in case anyone else is equally confused.
There is one completely unexplainable bit here, though: I see no
evidence of LOCKTAG_TRANSACTION locks being taken or released anywhere
in this log excerpt. That makes no sense to me ... anyone?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-04-23 19:30:44 | Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k o b j ect |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-04-23 19:12:59 | Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k o b j e ct |