Re: CIC and deadlocks

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavan Deolasee
Тема Re: CIC and deadlocks
Дата
Msg-id 2e78013d0703310922k31f3c91fyaac7de0947f8362f@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: CIC and deadlocks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: CIC and deadlocks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers

On 3/31/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ?

Can you give a specific example?

txn1 - CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (takes ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
txn2 - VACUUM ANALYZE (waits on ShareUpdateExclusiveLock)
tnx1 - waits for txn2 to complete in the second phase of CIC

deadlock!

Lazy VACUUM is safe because we don't include "inVacuum"  transactions
in the snapshot and hence don't wait for it in CIC. I haven't checked, but
VACUUM FULL would also deadlock.



I think you may be describing a missed opportunity in that logic,
more than a reason to add still another fragile assumption for HOT.

Not sure what you are referring to. But I shall keep this in mind.

Thanks,
Pavan
 

--

EnterpriseDB     http://www.enterprisedb.com

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout
Следующее
От: "Luke Lonergan"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents