X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CADA474E44
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  6 Feb 2003 07:12:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fzkmail2.fzk.de (fzkmail2.fzk.de [141.52.27.52])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1113E474E42
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  6 Feb 2003 07:12:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: FROM resy5.fzk.de BY fzkmail2.fzk.de ;
 Thu Feb 06 13:12:30 2003 +0100
Received: œby rodos.fzk.de with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.7.1) id NAA14488; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:12:29 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <3E42512D.D6014A75@rodos.fzk.de>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 13:12:29 +0100
From: Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/780)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: shariq77@yahoo.com, lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lock timeout detection in postgres 7.3.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200302/115
X-Sequence-Number: 11513

> >
> > T1 (within psql):
> > BEGIN; DELETE FROM <some_table> ;
> > DELETE n
> >
> > T2 (within psql):
> > BEGIN; DELETE FROM <some_table> ;
> > <waiting forever>
> >
...
>
>    I don't think there is a deadlock in the example
> given above. If I'm not mistaken a deadlock occurs if
> both transactions are waiting for each other to
> release the lock (i.e T1 waits for T2 to release
> locks/resources while T2 is also waiting for T1 to
> release locks/resources. In the above example,  T1
> doesn't wait for T2 to do something before finishes
> the transaction (Only T2 is waiting for T1 to finish),
> hence the condition for deadlock is not met.
>
Yupp, I agree.
But from former DBMS I was dealing with,
I know this SET TIMEOUT called feature, which if properly set
terminated processes like that hanging on T2.
Is there something comparable within Postgres?

Regards, Christoph