On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:47 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > This is not a deadlock.
> > It's just two locks on the same table
> Not as I read it.
> > (and maybe a bit more readable formatting).
> Eliminating null columns and mangling column headers for length, I
> get this:
> >> locktype | tranid | virtualx | pid | mode | gr
> >> transactionid | 39773877 | 63/15761 | 11157 | ShareLock | f
> >> transactionid | 39773877 | 4/10902 | 6421 | ExclusiveLock | t
> So it looks like two locks on the same transaction ID by different
> transactions. How does that happen?
Exactly, I found that odd.
And too, you're right in that looking at the locks doesn't suggest a
But the reality of pid 6421 stopping making any progress whatsoever
makes me think about an unregistered lock - perhaps a mutex somewhere
that isn't tracked by pg_locks.
When it doesn't happen, the related queries take at most a few minutes
to update ~30k rows. When the deadlock happens, though, same number of
rows (same query in fact), it remained "working" for day and a half, no
progress, every other update on the same page blocked by that big
update. The server's load drops suggesting the big update isn't doing
much other than waiting.
If I manually cancel the small query, for instance, the big update
starts consuming resources again (suggesting progress), but quickly
deadlocks again (because my app retries the query I just cancelled). If
I manually cancel the big query, of course, everything goes back to
normal (after the little while it takes to roll back).
I can't reproduce it in a test environment because it's tied to
concurrency patterns that I couldn't reproduce yet. I will keep trying
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-04-30 14:03:52|
|Subject: Re: [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-04-30 13:47:50|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5443: Undetected deadlock situation|