Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'
Date: 2007-06-19 12:33:25
Message-ID: 87fy4o86p6.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:

> Incidentally in looking at this I found that the "early deadlock detection"
> never seems to fire. Reading the source it seems it ought to be firing
> whenever we have a simple two-process deadlock. But instead I only get the
> timeout-based detection.

Ok, I understand now that early deadlock detection only kicks in when doing
something like LOCK TABLE and even then only if you're deadlocking because
you're upgrading a lock. So this works as intended though it's much less
useful than I thought.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-06-19 13:04:11
Subject: Re: Preliminary GSSAPI Patches
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-06-19 12:04:24
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group