Re: TRUNCATE HANGS
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TRUNCATE HANGS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CFA48AF02000025000382BB@gw.wicourts.gov обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | TRUNCATE HANGS (tmoore <tmoore@ttitech.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: TRUNCATE HANGS
Re: TRUNCATE HANGS |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
tmoore wrote: > The test is not doing any transaction based work, the write > functions just do sql insert, no begin commit blocks at the > application level. Well something is starting transactions; otherwise you wouldn't have a transaction sitting "idle in transaction". Are you perhaps accessing the database through Java with setAutoCommit(false)? (This is one of many ways you could have a transaction pending.) Whatever is starting the transactions is connecting through the local loopback address, since that connection is showing IP address 127.0.0.1. It's connecting to uisdb as the postgres user. Other connections are not using TCP connections, which is why I suspected it might be a Java process -- the JDBC driver always uses a TCP connection. > Any tips on interpreting pg_locks ? http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Lock_Monitoring > No blocking occurred. I'm not following you. Originally you were saying that there was a deadlock, which is a set of blocks which form a cycle. You also said that things were stuck until you killed a particular connection, at which point things got moving again, which at least suggests the possibility of blocking. One of the connections you showed reported that it was waiting, which I think means it is blocked. You showed one process idle in transaction, and most locks are released at transaction completion. Why do you say there was no blocking? -Kevin
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: