Re: Pet Peeves?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1(at)burntmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pet Peeves?
Date: 2009-01-30 17:01:10
Message-ID: 20090130170110.GA3218@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Guy Rouillier wrote:

> Back in March 2005, I started an email thread titled "Debugging
> deadlocks". Most of the experienced PGers participated in that thread.
> The basic issue at that time was that inserting a row into a table with a
> foreign key placed an exclusive row-level lock (SELECT FOR UPDATE) on the
> reference table (the table to which the foreign key refers). If you
> happen to do inserts on two different tables, each with a foreign key to
> the same reference table, deadlocks are pretty easy to create. This is
> especially true if the reference table has low cardinality, which is
> often the case.
>
> I don't know if this situation has been improved since that time.

We fixed this in 8.1 IIRC. FKs now use "SELECT FOR SHARE", which only
takes a shared lock not exclusive, and does away with most deadlocks of
this ilk. Of course, there are other ways to get in deadlock still.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/DXLWNGRJD34J
"I can see support will not be a problem. 10 out of 10." (Simon Wittber)
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-12/msg00159.php)

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2009-01-30 17:02:09 Re: Pet Peeves?
Previous Message Igor Katson 2009-01-30 16:29:19 Re: [Plproxy-users] Plproxy functions inside transactions and Pl/pgsql exception handling