Steve Clark <steve.cl...@netwolves.com> writes:
> No. But I examined the pg_log/log_file and saw an error indicating it was
> autovacuum:
> 2016-10-27 09:47:02 EDT:srm2api:12968:LOG: sending cancel to blocking
> autovacuum PID 12874
> 2016-10-27 09:47:02 EDT:srm2api:12968:DETAIL: Process 12968 waits for
> ExclusiveLock on relation 955454549 of database 955447411.
> 2016-10-27 09:47:02 EDT:srm2api:12968:STATEMENT: lock table
> t_unit_status_log in exclusive mode
> 2016-10-27 09:47:02 EDT::12874:ERROR: canceling autovacuum task
> 2016-10-27 09:47:02 EDT::12874:CONTEXT: automatic vacuum of table
> "srm2.public.t_unit_status_log"
That kicked the autovacuum off the table, but it didn't help because you
still had a deadlock condition afterwards:
> 2016-10-27 09:47:02 EDT:srm2api:9189:ERROR: deadlock detected at character 8
> 2016-10-27 09:47:02 EDT:srm2api:9189:DETAIL: Process 9189 waits for
> RowExclusiveLock on relation 955454549 of database 955447411; blocked by
> process 12968.
> Process 12968 waits for ExclusiveLock on relation 955454518 of
> database 955447411; blocked by process 9189.
> Process 9189: update t_unit_status_log set status_date = now ( ) ,
> unit_active = 'y' , last_updated_date = now ( ) , last_updated_by =
> current_user , devices_down = $1 where unit_serial_no = $2
> Process 12968: lock table t_unit in exclusive mode
> So I feel pretty confident this is the issue. I guess I should retry the
> update in my application.
Retrying might be a usable band-aid, but really this is an application
logic error. The code that is trying to do "lock table t_unit in
exclusive mode" must already hold some lower-level lock on t_unit, which
is blocking whatever the "update t_unit_status_log" command wants to do
with t_unit. Looks like a classic lock-strength-upgrade mistake to me.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
