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

Re: some question about deadlock

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: ipig <ipig(at)ercist(dot)iscas(dot)ac(dot)cn>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: some question about deadlock
Date: 2006-05-29 15:26:02
Message-ID: 200605291526.k4TFQ2a26289@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
ipig wrote:
> Hi,
>     Thanks for your reply.
>     I changed the format to plain text.
> 
>     For the question, suppose that process p0 held the lock of object A, and the wait queue for A is p1,p2,p3,...., that process p1 is the first waiter in the queue.
>     Since p1 is in the wait queue, the lock p1 requests must be conflict with the lock p0 held. 
>     That is to say, if p0 wants to lock A again, then p0 will be put before p1, and p0 will be at the head of the queue. Why do we need to find the first waiter which conflicts p0? I think that p0 must be added at the head of the wait queue.
>  
>    For your example, p0 has a read lock and wants an exclusive lock. 
>    Since p0 has a read lock, then in the queue, p1 must wait an exclusive lock.
>    Then p0 will be put before p1, and p0 will be at the head of the queue.
> 
>   Is there anything I misunderstood?

I am guessing that p0 is put at the head _only_ if there are conflicting
locks so that p0 does not starve other waiting processes.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ipigDate: 2006-05-29 15:43:21
Subject: Re: some question about deadlock
Previous:From: Albe LaurenzDate: 2006-05-29 15:22:27
Subject: question about security hole CVE-2006-2313 and UTF-8

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group