On 08/13/2015 06:39 AM, twoflower wrote:
Hello,
if I am reading the documentation on explicit locking
<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/explicit-locking.html#LOCKING-TABLES>
correctly, SELECT should never conflict with UPDATE. However, what I am
observing as a result of this monitoring query:
SELECT bl.pid AS blocked_pid,
a.usename AS blocked_user,
ka.query AS blocking_statement,
now() - ka.query_start AS blocking_duration,
kl.pid AS blocking_pid,
ka.usename AS blocking_user,
a.query AS blocked_statement,
now() - a.query_start AS blocked_duration
FROM pg_catalog.pg_locks bl
JOIN pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity a ON a.pid = bl.pid
JOIN pg_catalog.pg_locks kl ON kl.transactionid = bl.transactionid AND kl.pid
!= bl.pid
JOIN pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity ka ON ka.pid = kl.pid
WHERE NOT bl.granted;
What is the output of the above?
is this
*Blocking statement*: SELECT tmtranslat0_.id as id164_0_, tmtranslat1_.id as id101_1_,
tmlanguage2_.id as id73_2_, ... FROM "TRANSLATION" ...
What is the entire statement for above?
Is it part of transaction?
*Blocked statement*: UPDATE "TRANSLATION" SET fk_assignment_queue_item =
1000211 WHERE id IN (47032216)
I don't remember ever having problems with things like this. I am not
even issuing SQL queries in parallel from my application (the execution
is single-threaded). Now my application is stuck on the UPDATE statement.
1) How is it possible that these two statements block?
2) What can I do about it?
Thank you.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
