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

Re: CIC and deadlocks

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CIC and deadlocks
Date: 2007-03-31 13:14:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 17:45 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ?
> I saw one with VACUUM today. But I think it can happen with other
> CONCURRENTLY and so on. These commands conflict on the 
> ShareUpdateExclusiveLock held by CIC and hence would wait for
> CIC to release the lock. At the same time, CIC would wait for these
> transactions to complete.
> We know that these commands are run in a separate transaction 
> and do not do any index fetches or inserts/updates. So in principle
> CIC need not wait for these transactions to complete in any
> of its waits. May be we can skip waits on the transactions that
> are running one of these commands. 

Yes, because I proposed it already. :-)

"utility transactions" in - Latest plans for Utilities with HOT

  Simon Riggs             

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: korrydDate: 2007-03-31 13:34:16
Subject: Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, I know) forPQexecf()
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2007-03-31 12:15:57
Subject: CIC and deadlocks

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-03-31 14:09:18
Subject: Re: COPY-able sql log outputs
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2007-03-31 12:15:57
Subject: CIC and deadlocks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group