Again about (dead)locks

From: Leon <leon(at)udmnet(dot)ru>
To: "'pgsql-general(at)hub(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Again about (dead)locks
Date: 1999-07-28 12:21:56
Message-ID: 379EF5E4.1B8D34F3@udmnet.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi!

Have you read my previous message on LOCK TABLE canceling?
I see a problem here, problem of deadlocks. If transaction X
locked table A and is going to lock table B, and transaction Y
locked table B and tries to lock A, they will wait for each
other's completion, and that is deadlock. This can be avoided
by introducing adjustable lock wait timeouts. Otherwise it is
a bug.

--
Leon.
---------
"This may seem a bit weird, but that's okay, because it is weird." -
Perl manpage.

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Charles Tassell 1999-07-28 16:16:40 int2/int4 Failure with 6.5.1 and SlackWare 4.0
Previous Message Herouth Maoz 1999-07-28 10:21:06 Re: [GENERAL] Problems importing my 6.3 database into 6.5.1