> >
> > T1 (within psql):
> > BEGIN; DELETE FROM <some_table> ;
> > DELETE n
> >
> > T2 (within psql):
> > BEGIN; DELETE FROM <some_table> ;
> > <waiting forever>
> >
...
>
> I don't think there is a deadlock in the example
> given above. If I'm not mistaken a deadlock occurs if
> both transactions are waiting for each other to
> release the lock (i.e T1 waits for T2 to release
> locks/resources while T2 is also waiting for T1 to
> release locks/resources. In the above example, T1
> doesn't wait for T2 to do something before finishes
> the transaction (Only T2 is waiting for T1 to finish),
> hence the condition for deadlock is not met.
>
Yupp, I agree.
But from former DBMS I was dealing with,
I know this SET TIMEOUT called feature, which if properly set
terminated processes like that hanging on T2.
Is there something comparable within Postgres?
Regards, Christoph
