Hi, first of all, thanks to all, that replied!
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:28:31AM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:09:31AM +0100, Yann Michel wrote: > > Well, thanks for all the answers. Are the locks then released once they > > are not needed any more like in 2PC? > > 2PC doesn't release any locks, it can't to maintain integrity. Aehm. sorry I meant 2PL ... all this accronyms... ;-) The normal 2PL releases the locks once they are not needed anymore but can not aquire new ones. Strict 2PL releases them all at one point. > > That should still leaqve the taken snapshot of the released table in a > > consistent state but might enable other transactions to work on that one > > table once it is released. > > ACCESS SHARE means what it says, it stops the table being VACUUMed and > a few other things, but doesn't block INSERTs, UPDATEs or DELETEs. Thanks. BTW: Is there anything about locks and their meaning inside of the Docs? If not, wouldn't that be nice? > pg_dump doesn't blocks inserts, so your problem must be somewhere > else... Are you running VACUUM anywhere. It's possible that pg_dump is > blocking VACUUM which blocks your inserts... Well, now that I'm thinking about, what you've written I think this is exactly the point. I think, that there is a VACUUM waiting for the dump to finish whereas the INSERTS are waiting for the VACUUM to finish. Thannks! Cheers, Yann ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
