Thomas Kellerer wrote: > we have a strange (at least to me) deadlock situation which does not seem to > fall into the "usual" > deadlock category. > > The error as reported in the Postgres log file is this: > > 2016-03-12 13:51:29.305 CET [23912]: [1-1] user=arthur,db=prod,app=[unknown] > ERROR: deadlock detected > 2016-03-12 13:51:29.305 CET [23912]: [2-1] user=arthur,db=prod,app=[unknown] > DETAIL: Process 23912 > waits for ShareLock on transaction; blocked by process 24342. > Process 24342 waits for ShareLock on transaction 39632974; blocked by > process 23912. > Process 23912: UPDATE alpha SET some_flag = $1 WHERE (id = $2) > Process 24342: INSERT INTO bravo (..., alpha_id) VALUES ($1, $2, $3, > $4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $9, > $10) > > (I have "obfuscated" the table names) > > > Process 24342 did update table alpha in an earlier step, but a different row > than Process 23912 > updated. > Table bravo has a foreign key to table alpha. > > My understanding of the deadlock report is that the statements shown in the > log are the actual > statements on which the two processes were waiting. > > What I think is unusual in this situation is the INSERT statement that is > part of the deadlock > situation. > > The only way I can think of how a deadlock could happen during an insert, is > if process 23912 had > inserted a row into bravo with the same PK value that process 24342 is trying > to insert. But process > 23912 never even touches that table, so I am a bit confused on how this can > happen. > > Can the foreign key between bravo and alpha play a role here? With some > simple test setups I could not > get the insert to wait even if it was referencing the row that the other > process has updated. > > This happened on 9.3.10 running on Debian
The probable culprit is a foreign key between these tables. What foreign keys are defined? Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
