Re: Transaction size

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transaction size
Date: 2005-01-10 13:30:26
Message-ID: 11099.1105363826@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> writes:
>>> As they're inserts, and therefore not even touching the same data, I'm
>>> quite certain it's not some kind of row locking issue (does that even
>>> happen at all with MVCC?).
>>
>> I'm not. In particular this could be a foreign key locking issue ---
>> does the target table have foreign keys, and if so could inserts from
>> different transactions be referencing the same master row?

> It does have a reference to a table with statusses, but those are rather
> static. I suppose an integrity check is comparable to doing a select
> with respect to locking strategies? (Meaning that it wouldn't be the
> cause of my problem).

No, unfortunately it's more like a SELECT FOR UPDATE and it does take a
lock on the referenced row (with an eye to ensuring that the referenced
row can't go away before the new referencing row is committed).
I suspect this is indeed the cause of your problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-01-10 13:39:50 Re: ORDER BY in UNION query
Previous Message John Sidney-Woollett 2005-01-10 13:10:42 Re: ORDER BY in UNION query