pgn...@gmail.com escribió: > I sent the following information to pgsql-general to ask if it is expected > locking behavior. The only responses that I got said that the behavior is > reproducible on 9.1 and 9.3 beta 2. > Nobody said that this is expected locking behavior and I believe it to be a > bug, so I am filing this bug report. > The exact steps on how to reproduce the problem are shown below. Thank you > for putting together a great DB and for working on this bug report.
See here: http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/alvaro_herrera/2010/11/fixing_foreign_key_deadlocks/ There are further posts on the same topic in that blog. The patch dealing with it was finally committed for the 9.3 version, due to be released later this year: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=0ac5ad5134f2769ccbaefec73844f8504c4d6182 At the bottom of the commit messages there are some message-ids on (rather long) discussions about that patch. You can search for them at http://www.postgresql.org/list/ (just enter the msgid in the box and click search). If you try a 9.3 snapshot, you should be able to replace the FOR UPDATE in your queries with FOR NO KEY UPDATE and there should be no deadlock. Even if it does not, I hope the aforementioned posts explain what is going on. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
