Re: Concurrency

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Kris Kiger <kris(at)musicrebellion(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Concurrency
Date: 2005-05-09 21:46:29
Message-ID: 1937.1115675189@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 15:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... usually. We will promote later arrivals in front of older ones if
>> the alternative would be a deadlock (eg, the later one already holds
>> some lock that would block the earlier one).

> Thats part of deadlock detection? I had thought we just blew one away...

Only after deciding that there's no way to rearrange the lock queues to
eliminate the deadlock.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message users jtech softwares 2005-05-10 08:58:12 Extracting rowid of a locked row.
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-05-09 21:38:35 Re: Concurrency