Re: Soft deadlocks
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Soft deadlocks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29104.1182785028@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Soft deadlocks (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > I'm trying to understand what a soft deadlock is as described by deadlock.c. > As best I understand if a process, A, is waiting for a lock and is being > blocked only because someone, B, is ahead of it in the queue but hasn't been > granted the conflicting lock we want to jump A ahead of B. No, we only do that if it breaks a deadlock. In your example there is no reason to move process A ahead of B. A more typical situation is like this: Process A:begin;select * from T where ...;-- now A holds AccessShareLock on T Process B:lock table T;-- wants AccessExclusiveLock on T, blocks waiting for A Process A:lock table T;-- blocks behind B? Fairness would normally demand that A queue behind B for the AccessExclusiveLock, but if we do that we have a deadlock. So we spring A ahead of B and let it have the AccessExclusiveLock out of turn. This is just the base case; you can get into similar situations involving more than one lockable object and more than two processes. I believe that the above case is caught by the test in ProcSleep and A will be granted the lock upgrade without blocking at all; but any more-complex situation will only be discovered when someone runs the deadlock checker. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: