On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Joel Jacobson <j...@gluefinance.com> wrote: > If the locking logic would be modified to allow process 2 to go through, and > instead abort process 1, I understand some other scenarios would of course > be affected, where the situation would be handled in a less optimal way.
Which process dies when there's a deadlock is pretty much arbitary. The first process to notice the deadlock will just throw an error itself. Which one notices first depends on the timing of when the blocking locks were taken. If the second process to get stuck blocks before the first process checks then the first process will notice first. If it does other stuff first then the first process will check, not find a deadlock and go back to sleep. Then the deadlock won't be detected until the second process checks. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
