On 12-Feb-08, at 5:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The other process is inserting into the user_profile table.
Did either transaction do anything else in the same transaction
previously?
It would appear that the insert is running before the reindex starts.
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The other process is inserting into the user_profile table.
>>
>> Did either transaction do anything else in the same transaction
>> previously?
>>
> It would appear that the insert is running before the reindex starts.
That's not possible --- if i
On 12-Feb-08, at 1:02 PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
"Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 12-Feb-08, at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave Cramer wrote:
reindex table user_profile;
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessEx
"Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12-Feb-08, at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Dave Cramer wrote:
reindex table user_profile;
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation
1
On 12-Feb-08, at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave Cramer wrote:
reindex table user_profile;
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation
194689112 of database 163880909; blocked by process 31236.
Process 31
"Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> reindex table user_profile;
> ERROR: deadlock detected
> DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation 194689112 of
> database 163880909; blocked by process 31236.
> Process 31236 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 194689110 of d
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we rework REINDEX TABLE so that it processes each index on its own
> transaction?
It still wouldn't be guaranteed deadlock-free. There might be fewer
cases, but whether it would help Dave's particular case is just
speculation when we don't know wha
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't find this very surprising ... I would suggest using "reindex
> > index" for each index instead. I'm not sure if REINDEX TABLE is
> > supposed to be deadlock-free.
>
> It's not guaranteed to be so, but I'd think simple cases
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>> reindex table user_profile;
>> ERROR: deadlock detected
>> DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation
>> 194689112 of database 163880909; blocked by process 31236.
>> Process 31236 waits for AccessShareLock
Dave Cramer wrote:
> reindex table user_profile;
> ERROR: deadlock detected
> DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation
> 194689112 of database 163880909; blocked by process 31236.
> Process 31236 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 194689110 of
> database 163880909; b
reindex table user_profile;
ERROR: deadlock detected
DETAIL: Process 32450 waits for AccessExclusiveLock on relation
194689112 of database 163880909; blocked by process 31236.
Process 31236 waits for AccessShareLock on relation 194689110 of
database 163880909; blocked by process 32450.
jnj=
11 matches
Mail list logo