On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 17:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > There's some things still to be desired here: if an autovac process is > involved in a hard deadlock, the patch doesn't favor zapping it over > anybody else, nor consider cancelling the autovac as an alternative to > rearranging queues for a soft deadlock. But dealing with that will > open cans of worms that I don't think we want to open for 8.3.
I did look at doing that but decided it would not be appropriate to do that in all cases. i.e. there are hard deadlock cases where the autovac can be the head of the lock queue and yet a deadlock still exists between two other processes. The deadlock detector doesn't get called twice for the same deadlock, so it wasn't possible to speculatively do that and then re-catch it second time around. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
