| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Deadlock with single update statement? |
| Date: | 2017-06-10 23:41:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20170610234115.letm3s5pj5a5snvl@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> detail|Process 26871 waits for ShareLock on transaction 13693505; blocked by process 26646.
> Process 26646 waits for ShareLock on transaction 13693504; blocked by process 26871.
> Process 26871: SELECT db_column_name,table_name FROM huawei_m2000_counter_details ORDER BY ctid FOR UPDATE
> Process 26646: SELECT db_column_name,table_name FROM huawei_m2000_counter_details ORDER BY ctid FOR UPDATE
Uh, this is locking the whole table. Is there no useful WHERE? What
you should be doing is SELECT WHERE <key values> ORDER BY <key> FOR
UPDATE where <key> is indexed.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-06-11 03:38:40 | Re: ERROR: unexpected chunk number 0 (expected 1) for toast value 76753264 in pg_toast_10920100 |
| Previous Message | rob stone | 2017-06-10 21:30:58 | Re: Inconsistent performance with LIKE and bind variable on long-lived connection |