From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Milligan <milli(at)acmeps(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PG 8.3.3 - ERROR: lock AccessShareLock on object 16385/16467/0 is already held |
Date: | 2008-12-29 14:35:52 |
Message-ID: | 20081229143552.GF4545@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ reincluding the mailing list ]
>
> Michael Milligan <milli(at)acmeps(dot)com> writes:
> > Okay, it reproduces and surprise surprise nLocks does overflow...
>
> > ERROR: lock AccessShareLock on object 16385/16467/0 is already held
> > lock(0x87408a028) id(16385,16467,0,0,0,1) grantMask(a) waitMask(0)
> > req(2,0,1,0,0,0,0,0)=3 grant(1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0)=2 wait(0)
> > proclock(0x8743a7508) lock(0x87408a028) method(1) proc(0x8743aada8) hold(a)
> > locallock(0xb29c78) nLocks(-2147483648) nOwners(2) mOwners(8)
>
> Hah. Okay, that shows that we'd never have reproduced it with a small
> test case.
This hasn't been fixed yet, has it? Do you have any ideas on how to
actually fix the problem? I wonder if it looks like enlarging nLocks,
or you're intending to attempt to reduce the number of locks taken.
A customer of ours started hitting this bug too, last week.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-29 15:06:18 | Re: PG 8.3.3 - ERROR: lock AccessShareLock on object 16385/16467/0 is already held |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-29 10:51:54 | Re: BUG #4596: information_schema.table_privileges is way too slow |