On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 06:43:20PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-12-09 09:38:33 -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> > > > For whatever it's worth, I was able to bisect the problem to this commit:
> > > >
> > > > commit
> > > > 0ac5ad5134f2769ccbaefec73844f8504c4d6182
> > > >
> > > > Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
> > > >
> > > > Date: Wed Jan 23 12:04:59 2013 -0300
> > > >
> > > > Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
> > >
> > > I'm not surprised in the least, TBH.
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks for your attention to this. Is there anything we're doing wrong that
> > could improve this in current 9.3 versions?
>
> I don't think anybody can seriously can give you a serious workaround
> until the issue has been diagnosed further.
agreed.
>
> One thing you could try would be to create a unique index that spans all
> the columns in the table... That'd prevent usage of lower locklevels
> added in the above commit.
Thanks for this idea. I'll investigate.
thanks
A
