Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Milligan <milli(at)acmeps(dot)com> writes:
>> FWIW, I've used the exact same code against PG 8.2.6 and have half a
>> dozen similar transactions that inserted more than 13.5 million rows,
>> with the largest transaction at a little over 25 million rows inserted
>> into the email table.
> Hmph. That seems to eliminate the overflow theory, because 8.2 has
> essentially the same lock-counting code as 8.3. Unless 8.3 is taking
> out the lock a heckuva lot more than 8.2 did, but I can't think of a
> reason for that to happen.
> Now that we know you can reproduce it, we should think about how to get
> some information out. Are you in a position to build a locally modified
> Postgres? I could send you a patch to make that particular error report
> dump out more information about the lock state, but a patch won't do you
> any good if you aren't able to build from source.
I can rebuild with a patch, sure. I've got a spare machine I can mirror
the db over to (same hardware) to debug this.
Michael Milligan -> milli(at)acmeps(dot)com
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Marcus Locatelli||Date: 2008-09-01 02:30:10|
|Subject: Error connecting|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-08-30 01:59:42|
|Subject: Re: PG 8.3.3 - ERROR: lock AccessShareLock on object 16385/16467/0 is already held |