Re: Strange behavior with pg_locks and partitioning
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Strange behavior with pg_locks and partitioning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYyxwwAL5k1dAcwAtUkNYfZepAPEAkydducsjD2icYy6A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Strange behavior with pg_locks and partitioning (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Strange behavior with pg_locks and partitioning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > In the course of debugging why a particular server required increasing > max_locks_per_transation, I found a peculiar behavior. If you do an > UPDATE which doesn't match any CE constraint on the parent table in an > inheritance chain, you get a RowExclusiveLock on every partition and > every index on every partition. However, these rowexclusivelocks have > no page or tuple reference; it's a RowExclusiveLock with no row. > > Is this intentional? RowExclusiveLock is a type of table lock, not a lock on a row. You're going to get that on all tables (and their indexes) involved in any write query. So it sounds unsurprising to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: