Re: Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock
| От | Nico Heller |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 777cfa1c-fd1f-479f-b9b8-217b0f7a40b7@posteo.de обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock
Re: Guarantee order of batched pg_advisory_xact_lock |
| Список | pgsql-general |
I just checked for hash collisions with the following query today:
SELECT COUNT(*), hashtextextended(key, 0) FROM
(
SELECT key FROM table1
UNION
SELECT key FROM table2
UNION
...
) keys (key)
GROUP BY hashtextextended(key, 0)
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Where table1, table2, ... are all the tables we are acquire keys from to use for the mentioned query.
Sadly, no results were returned. Thus, I can rule out hash collisions.
Any other thoughts? Here is an error log from the JDBC driver:
org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: deadlock detected Detail: Process 60780 waits for ExclusiveLock on advisory lock [24605,3030106527,494580150,1]; blocked by process 65280. Process 65280 waits for ExclusiveLock on advisory lock [24605,1321834016,1311356115,1]; blocked by process 60780. |
On 2/11/26 23:49, Tom Lane wrote:
Nico Heller <nico.heller@posteo.de> writes:So it would probably be better to ORDER BY the hashtextended result instead of :keysToLock, right?Yeah, that seems like it'd work, if you have no other dependencies on the locking order. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: