| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Campbell <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Deadlock with pg_dump? |
| Date: | 2006-10-26 21:21:26 |
| Message-ID: | 25632.1161897686@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Chris Campbell <chris(at)bignerdranch(dot)com> writes:
> ERROR: deadlock detected
> DETAIL: Process 1120 waits for ShareLock on transaction 5847116;
> blocked by process 1171.
> Process 1171 waits for ExclusiveLock on tuple (6549,28) of relation
> 37637 of database 37574; blocked by process 1120.
> Relation 37636 is the users table (schema attached).
> Process 1120 was running an UPDATE query and changing a single row in
> the users table.
And what was 1171 doing? I really doubt that either of these could have
been pg_dump.
Given that you appear to be running 8.1 (tut-tut for not saying), it
really shouldn't be a foreign key problem either. I'm betting these
are just flat out conflicting updates of the same row(s).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-26 21:24:37 | Re: plperl/plperlu interaction |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-10-26 21:16:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating phase 3 requirement for varlen increases via ALTER COLUMN |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-26 21:37:47 | Re: GUC description cleanup |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-10-26 21:16:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Eliminating phase 3 requirement for varlen increases via ALTER COLUMN |