| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird locking situation |
| Date: | 2003-10-04 09:38:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3F7E951F.9060402@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> regression=# UPDATE foo SET f2=now() WHERE f1=1;
> ERROR: deadlock detected
> DETAIL: Process 18122 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation 154635 of database 17139; blocked by process 18133.
> Process 18133 waits for ShareLock on transaction 6330; blocked by process 18122.
>
> The trouble here is that GIST indexes are not concurrency-safe.
> This is on the TODO list but I fear it's not a small task ...
Wow, that's bad. I always thought the TODO item was talking about poor
concurrent performance - not actual concurrency errors!
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-10-04 11:31:21 | Re: Using backslash in query |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-10-04 09:37:32 | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |