| From: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Deadlock with ShareLocks? |
| Date: | 2005-12-13 15:57:54 |
| Message-ID: | 200512131657.54984.mweilguni@sime.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2005 16:52 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> > Since the type field is PK, there cannot be 2 rows with type='list', I
> > guess the deadlock must have some different explanation.
>
> Then the deadlock must involve rows in two different tables. What else
> are you doing in the same transaction(s) as updating last_modified?
That's what I think too, unfortunatly, I can't say for sure. The application
uses around 1000 different queries, and I had no logging on for this case. So
I guess two backends might have issued interleaved updates.
I think without logging this cannot be solved here.
Best regards,
Mario Weilguni
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-13 16:04:34 | Re: Deadlock with ShareLocks? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-13 15:52:25 | Re: Deadlock with ShareLocks? |