From: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com>
To: Bèrto ëd Sèra <berto.d.sera@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>
Subject: Re: lock problem
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:41:43 +0800
Message-ID: <4EF1F027.507@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwGa_-C0Gcp2PaNWS9_kq0nz7KfcbV8hb5XYmxzUyHNt6AF-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4EF18A8A0200002500043F0A@gw.wicourts.gov>
<CAKwGa_-C0Gcp2PaNWS9_kq0nz7KfcbV8hb5XYmxzUyHNt6AF-w@mail.gmail.com>
yes, it's truncated. the full sql is like this:
"update article set
tm_update=$1,rply_cnt=$2,read_cnt=$3,tm_last_rply=$4 where
title_hash=$5"
the title_hash is unique.
I dig another case more and found something interesting. it's actually
waiting for a lock of type transactionid. I ran the query below 3 times
very quickly and each time it showed a different lock holder.
db=# select pl1.*,pl2.pid,pa.query_start,pa.waiting,pa.current_query
from pg_locks pl1 left join pg_locks pl2 on
pl1.transactionid=pl2.transactionid and pl2.granted
left join pg_stat_activity pa on pl2.pid=pa.procpid where pl1.pid=6053
and not pl1.granted;
locktype | database | relation | page | tuple | virtualxid |
transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid | virtualtransaction | pid
| mode | granted | pid |
query_start | waiting |
current_query
---------------+----------+----------+------+-------+------------+---------------+---------+-------+----------+--------------------+------+-----------+---------+------+---------
----------------------+---------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
transactionid | | | | | |
1586721800 | | | | 238/39230 | 6053 |
ShareLock | f | 3026 | 2011-12-
21 22:24:20.027493+08 | t | update article set
tm_update=$1,rply_cnt=$2,read_cnt=$3,tm_last_rply=$4 where title_hash=$5
(1 row)
db=# select pl1.*,pl2.pid,pa.query_start,pa.waiting,pa.current_query
from pg_locks pl1 left join pg_locks pl2 on
pl1.transactionid=pl2.transactionid and pl2.granted
left join pg_stat_activity pa on pl2.pid=pa.procpid where pl1.pid=6053
and not pl1.granted;
locktype | database | relation | page | tuple | virtualxid |
transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid | virtualtransaction | pid
| mode | granted | pid |
query_start | waiting |
current_query
---------------+----------+----------+------+-------+------------+---------------+---------+-------+----------+--------------------+------+-----------+---------+------+---------
----------------------+---------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
transactionid | | | | | |
1586739901 | | | | 238/39230 | 6053 |
ShareLock | f | 3254 | 2011-12-
21 22:25:15.133554+08 | t | update article set
tm_update=$1,rply_cnt=$2,read_cnt=$3,tm_last_rply=$4 where title_hash=$5
(1 row)
db=# select pl1.*,pl2.pid,pa.query_start,pa.waiting,pa.current_query
from pg_locks pl1 left join pg_locks pl2 on
pl1.transactionid=pl2.transactionid and pl2.granted
left join pg_stat_activity pa on pl2.pid=pa.procpid where pl1.pid=6053
and not pl1.granted;
locktype | database | relation | page | tuple | virtualxid |
transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid | virtualtransaction | pid
| mode | granted | pid |
query_start | waiting |
current_query
---------------+----------+----------+------+-------+------------+---------------+---------+-------+----------+--------------------+------+-----------+---------+------+---------
----------------------+---------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
transactionid | | | | | |
1586626482 | | | | 238/39230 | 6053 |
ShareLock | f | 1518 | 2011-12-
21 22:19:28.880025+08 | t | update article set
tm_update=$1,rply_cnt=$2,read_cnt=$3,tm_last_rply=$4 where title_hash=$5
(1 row)
I found the description of transactionid type here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2010-05/msg00066.php
Currently, the only case where anything will try to take a sharelock on
transaction id is when it is blocking on a row-level lock as a result of
trying to modify or delete or SELECT FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE a row that the
other transaction already modified or deleted or selected FOR
UPDATE/SHARE.
I'm pretty sure those queries are updating different rows each. why
they are waiting for row lock for each other?
Another question is: query A waiting for B, then waiting for C, then
waiting for D. I checked the query start time, A is much earlier than
B/C/D. Why A still couldn't get the lock while looks B/C/D seems have
gotten the lock even ABCD are all similar transaction?
于2011年12月21日 21:51:14,Bèrto ëd Sèra写到:
> Hi!
>
> I don't see a WHERE clause, so it looks like you're updating the
> whole table each time.
>
>
> it's got a substr(pg_stat_activity.current_query,1,30) in it, so we
> shall hardly see anything about the WHERE clause, but we'd really need
> to have more info about it.
>
> Bèrto
> --
> ==============================
> If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a
> darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: ruralhunter@gmail.com, berto.d.sera@gmail.com, kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: lock problem
In-Reply-To: <4EF1F027.507@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox