Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: CIC and deadlocks
- From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
- To: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: CIC and deadlocks
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:14:36 +0100
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 17:45 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > Isn't CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY prone deadlock conditions ? > I saw one with VACUUM today. But I think it can happen with other > commands like VACUUM FULL, CLUSTER, CREATE INDEX > CONCURRENTLY and so on. These commands conflict on the > ShareUpdateExclusiveLock held by CIC and hence would wait for > CIC to release the lock. At the same time, CIC would wait for these > transactions to complete. > > We know that these commands are run in a separate transaction > and do not do any index fetches or inserts/updates. So in principle > CIC need not wait for these transactions to complete in any > of its waits. May be we can skip waits on the transactions that > are running one of these commands. Yes, because I proposed it already. :-) "utility transactions" in - Latest plans for Utilities with HOT -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
- References:
- CIC and deadlocks
- From: Pavan Deolasee
- CIC and deadlocks
- Prev by Date: CIC and deadlocks
- Next by Date: Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, I know) forPQexecf()
- Previous by thread: CIC and deadlocks
- Next by thread: Re: CIC and deadlocks
- Indexes: