| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Deadlock with ShareLocks? |
| Date: | 2005-12-13 23:31:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1134516688.27873.135.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 11:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> > I guess two backends might have issued interleaved updates.
> > I think without logging this cannot be solved here.
>
> Yeah, it's annoying that there is no convenient way to see the contents
> of pg_locks at the instant of the deadlock. Knowing which tuple locks
> were held would give at least some additional information.
Can we LOG that info? If the deadlock detector knows about it, surely we
can dump it out usefully.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-12-13 23:57:20 | Re: New release: - kbforge 1.20 Free desktop search |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-12-13 22:31:29 | Re: Inherited Constraints |