Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior on locks

2006-01-22 Thread Tom Lane
Alfranio Correia Junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am executing some stored procedures written in pl/pgsql > But wouldn't PostgreSQL show information per statement executed by the > functions ? No. The command shown in the process status is always just the outermost operation.

Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior on locks

2006-01-22 Thread Alfranio Correia Junior
I am executing some stored procedures written in pl/pgsql But wouldn't PostgreSQL show information per statement executed by the functions ? or SELECT func_with_side_effects() ? -Mike ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increas

Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior on locks

2006-01-22 Thread Alfranio Correia Junior
Perhaps you are using SELECT FOR UPDATE? I am not using "SELECT FOR UPDATES"... Could it have another cause ? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior on locks

2006-01-20 Thread Michael Adler
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:47:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alfranio Correia Junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What could cause the status ("select waiting") ? > > Perhaps you are using SELECT FOR UPDATE? or SELECT func_with_side_effects() ? -Mike ---(end of broad

Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior on locks

2006-01-20 Thread Tom Lane
Alfranio Correia Junior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What could cause the status ("select waiting") ? Perhaps you are using SELECT FOR UPDATE? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list arc

[HACKERS] strange behavior on locks

2006-01-20 Thread Alfranio Correia Junior
Hi, I running PostgreSQL 8.0.x with database that does not have foreign keys and sometimes the following messages appears: ERROR: deadlock detected DETAIL: Process 10029 waits for ShareLock on transaction 65272; blocked by process 32436. Process 32436 waits for ShareLock on transaction