On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote:
> Not sure, just the combination of parallel operations and remote > connections seemed to be an avenue to explore. Given that everything is > local, turns out it was dead end. > Looking at the pastebin log again, am I reading it right that the first > process actually COMMITs properly? > Also is there a trigger in the mix that might be fouling things up? > Please note that the pastebin log is split by backend pid, and only in backend-pid groups sorted by timestamp. 66014 started transaction later, and committed, while 66017, which started transaction earlier, and actually obtained lock earlier - got killed by deadlock resolution. There are no triggers aside from some (~10) fkeys. depesz
