Re: Update blocking a select count(*)?
| От | Benedict Holland |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Update blocking a select count(*)? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAD+mzoyBbX6z9erCNdp2gSP_xBLJOZQFiN7F-BJCS+-O1Sqbmg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Update blocking a select count(*)? ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Update blocking a select count(*)?
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
I ran the scripts on the page and both returned empty (though I have queries running and currently nothing blocks). I don't know what they should have been. The output was from PgAdmin3 which is a UI for postgres. I assume that they get this queried information from something inside of postgres as I can't imagine the query tool doing something other than querying the database for specs. I think it looks at the PID. This very well might be a PgAdmin issue and have nothing to do with postgres.
~Ben
~Ben
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
Benedict Holland <benedict.m.holland@gmail.com> wrote:What reported that? The PostgreSQL server doesn't report such
> Is it a bug that the blocking process reported is the finial
> process but really the process blocking the intermediate?
things directly, and I don't know pgadmin, so I don't know about
that tool. I wrote the recursive query on this page:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Lock_dependency_information
So if that reported anything incorrecly, please let me know so I can
fix it.
By the way, the example with the three connections would have been
better had I suggested a BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL
REPEATABLE READ; on the third connection. With that, even if one or
both of the transactions on the other connections committed, the
third transaction's count should remain unchanged.
-Kevin
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: