Re: Deadlock with tsearch2 index ... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marc G. Fournier
Subject Re: Deadlock with tsearch2 index ...
Date
Msg-id 20050531195525.M933@ganymede.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Deadlock with tsearch2 index ...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> (2) we acquire and release the index lock for each *tuple* rather than 
> each statement.  Then client2 doesn't hold the index lock while it's 
> waiting for the row lock to clear.
>
> Neither of these cures sounds attractive :-(.  I think #1 would probably 
> do as much to create deadlock cases as to prevent them.  #2 would avoid 
> the deadlock but the performance cost would be high.

But ... this wouldn't affect SELECT operations, would it?  And only GiST 
related operations?  Would the performance loss be noticeable?  And, would 
the performance cost not be worth getting rid of the deadlocks, until the 
concurrency issues can be properly dealt with?

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Physical Tlist optimization still possible?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: NOLOGGING option, or ?