On May 13, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tino Schwarze <postgresql(at)tisc(dot)de> writes:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 01:18:24PM -0600, kevin kempter wrote:
>> ProgrammingError: deadlock detected
>> DETAIL: Process 23098 waits for ShareUpdateExclusiveLock on
>> relation 428126 of database 427376; blocked by process 23916.
>> Process 23916 waits for ShareLock on transaction 46802680; blocked
>> by process 23098.
>> I've never figured out how to resolve the "lock on transaction" to
>> something understandable...
> It's presumably waiting for a row lock that the other transaction
> has got. We don't keep enough information about row locks in memory
> to give a better error message (because we could run out of memory
> if we tried :-()
> regards, tom lane
If that's true does it make sense to play with a timeout value (I
assume the timeout is configurable somewhere in postgresql.conf) in an
effort to tune for this ?
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2008-05-14 00:49:33|
|Subject: Re: Deadlocks ?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-05-13 23:00:28|
|Subject: Re: Deadlocks ? |