Re: Clustering with minimal locking - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Gurjeet Singh
Subject Re: Clustering with minimal locking
Date
Msg-id 65937bea0806180109m68bdb53cke3c74077f32d59ee@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Clustering with minimal locking  (Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Scott Ribe wrote:
BOOM! Deadlock.

No more likely than with the current cluster command. Acquiring the lock is
the same risk; but it is held for much less time.


Actually, no (at least in 8.2). CLUSTER grabs an exclusive lock before it does any work meaning that it can't deadlock by itself. Of course you could always do something like

BEGIN;
SELECT * FROM a;
CLUSTER .. ON a;
COMMIT;

Which does introduce the risk of a deadlock

Really!!? Am I missing something? How can a single transaction, running synchronous commands, deadlock itself!

Best regards,
--
gurjeet[.singh]@EnterpriseDB.com
singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Albe Laurenz"
Date:
Subject: Re: Error when trying to drop a tablespace
Next
From: Cyril SCETBON
Date:
Subject: Re: Error when trying to drop a tablespace