On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 02:10:22PM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> The ExclusiveLock seems to be granted on the transaction id instead of
> tables. So I am guessing that, for a connection, the first lock is granted
> to the transaction id and later other locks are granted on specific tables.
Right.
SYTmpDir, SYT | 2006-02-23 14:04:49.498836-05 | 00:00:00.558588
|
9667
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Fuhr
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:36 PM
To: Carlos Oliva
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Exclu
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:23:36PM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Yes. I am seeing that situation often in our database.
>
> The query field of pg_stat_activity is SELECT ..., not SLECT UPDATE or
> UPDATE or INSERT or DELETE. I was expecting the query to say something like
> SLECT UPDATE or someth
@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ExclusiveLock without a relation in pg_locks
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:08:07AM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Thank you very much for your answer. I think that I am seeing those self
> transaction id locks as "ExclusiveLocks"
>
> Would you expect to
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:08:07AM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Thank you very much for your answer. I think that I am seeing those self
> transaction id locks as "ExclusiveLocks"
>
> Would you expect to see an "ExclusiveLock" with a query of type Select (not
> Select Update or Update or Insert)?
CTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martijn van
Oosterhout
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:04 AM
To: Carlos Oliva
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ExclusiveLock without a relation in pg_locks
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:54:36AM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Would co
CTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Fuhr
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Carlos Oliva
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ExclusiveLock without a relation in pg_locks
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:54:36AM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Would connection
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:54:36AM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Would connections to a database require crating an extra ExclusiveLock? We
> have some connections to the database that happen to be "idle in
> transaction" and their pids have a granted "Exclusive Lock" in pg_locks. I
> cannot discer
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:54:36AM -0500, Carlos Oliva wrote:
> Would connections to a database require crating an extra ExclusiveLock? We
> have some connections to the database that happen to be "idle in
> transaction" and their pids have a granted "Exclusive Lock" in pg_locks. I
> cannot discer
