| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | kevin kempter <kevin(at)kevinkempterllc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tino Schwarze <postgresql(at)tisc(dot)de>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Deadlocks ? |
| Date: | 2008-05-14 00:49:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20080514004933.GR6966@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
kevin kempter wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 01:18:24PM -0600, kevin kempter wrote:
>>> ProgrammingError: deadlock detected
>>> DETAIL: Process 23098 waits for ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on
>>> relation 428126 of database 427376; blocked by process 23916.
>>> Process 23916 waits for ShareLock on transaction 46802680; blocked
>>> by process 23098.
> If that's true does it make sense to play with a timeout value (I assume
> the timeout is configurable somewhere in postgresql.conf) in an effort to
> tune for this ?
If there's a deadlock, it's gonna wait until detected, so no matter
how large you set the timeout, there's no getting out of it.
If it were a plain lock wait, it would make sense to try to increase the
timeout.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julius Tuskenis | 2008-05-14 14:32:23 | translating exception messages of postgresql functions |
| Previous Message | kevin kempter | 2008-05-13 23:33:27 | Re: Deadlocks ? |