In response to "antiochus antiochus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > In response to "antiochus antiochus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Bill Moran < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > In response to "antiochus antiochus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > I have a deadlock situation, two transactions waiting on each other > > to > > > > > complete. Based on the details below, would anyone have > > recommendations > > > > for > > > > > me, please? > > > > > > > > I have a theory on deadlocks, and that theory is that it's damn near > > > > impossible to track them all down, so your best bet is to wrap all > > > > SQL calls in a function that detects deadlock and sleep/retries.
[snip] > For the past fews days, I've been making the application work using your > second suggestion (what I meant by "some form of explicit locking"). It does > works. > > However, it is the first explicit lock used in this growing application and > I was trying to not have any. The rows of this table are, from a business > logic perspective, partitioned into distinct sets (think one set per > customer) and a transaction would never involve rows across these sets. So > in the original design, concurrency is great across customer requests. > By using the table-level lock, writing transactions targeting these > non-overlapping per-customer sets end up waiting on each other... > > If that is the best we can do, that is it. However, I do not understand why > acquiring row-level locks in consistent order does not seem to be enough, or > if that is so, why my methodology to enforce this ordering is flawed. Note > that I also use foreign keys and I am aware of the fact that constraints are > verified (and lock acquired) after row insertion and this is taken into > account as well. I could have a "per-customer" lock, to improve concurrency > across customers while avoiding deadlocks, or use seralizable transactions, > but I was wondering if a methodology to accomplish what I was originally > trying to do has been documented anywhere. I seem to remember us determining that you were _not_ acquiring row-level locks in a consistent order. Did I miss something? AFAIK, if you can do so in a consistent order, you will never hit deadlocks. Also, I stand by my original statement that deadlocks are nearly impossible to 100% avoid and they're easy to recover from, so it makes sense to program your application to detect them and retry appropriately. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
