Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Deadlock? idle in transaction

From: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Deadlock? idle in transaction
Date: 2001-10-29 08:00:58
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 11:29:08AM -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> Do you mean like task1 has gotten the A lock, and then task 2 gets the B
> and then task1 tries to get B and task2 tries to get A?  I *think*
> (without ever looking at the code, and going on messages from here) that
> would probably kick off the deadlock alert since you're trying to grab
> a lock from a process which is waiting for a lock you hold.

I checked it and yes, it kicks off the deadlock alert. The idle in
transaction problem is not a deadlock but a transaction that simply does
not proceed. 

In our case we believe to have found the reason. There was one user who
accessed the database via M$ Access and was allowed to write. And this user
looked into a table and then let this query open while doing other work.
Since he's able to change data I would guess that the query is internally
realized as a cursor select for update which of course locks. With Access
doing nothing but displaying the data the transaction certainly is idle.
That's it.

Michael Meskes
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jean-Michel POUREDate: 2001-10-29 08:10:04
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Ultimate DB Server
Previous:From: Jean-Michel POUREDate: 2001-10-29 07:50:36
Subject: Re: Ultimate DB Server

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group