On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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, -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
