Re: Deadlock with pg_dump?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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