On 2022-Aug-30, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> 2022-08-24 20:01:04.466 UTC,"postgres","database",3343477,"[local]",630624ad.330475,43,"ALTER TABLE",2022-08-24
13:16:29UTC,21/1932,0,ERROR,40P01,"deadlock detected","Process 3343477 waits for ShareRowExclusiveLock on relation
742617610of database 16641; blocked by process 3587718.
> Process 3587718 waits for RowExclusiveLock on relation 742615338 of database 16641; blocked by process 3343477.
> Process 3343477: ALTER TABLE ONLY some_schema.table_ao
> ADD CONSTRAINT table_ao_q_id_fk FOREIGN KEY (q_id) REFERENCES some_schema.table_q(id);
>
>
>
> Process 3587718: <command string not enabled>","See server log for query details.",,,,"ALTER TABLE ONLY
some_schema.table_ao
> ADD CONSTRAINT table_ao_q_id_fk FOREIGN KEY (q_id) REFERENCES some_schema.table_q(id);
>
>
> ",,,"pg_restore","client backend",,3355460102417501954
>
> Which is weird, as it seems that they both were trying to do the same fkey?!
>
> Neither table_ao nor table_q are partitioned, and used restore-list contained this fkey only once.
Hmm, you said table_a_o and table_a first, but now you say table_ao. I
suspect that's just a typo resulting from anonymizing table names. Right?
OK, so no partitioning. But are there any inheritance relationship
between these tables?
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No es bueno caminar con un hombre muerto"