From: Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: SET TIMEOUT equivalent / was: Lock timeout detection
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:35:43 +0100
Message-ID: <3E437DEF.406C7445@rodos.fzk.de> (raw)
>
> > >
> > > 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?
>
Sorry to bother again with my question. Is it too stupid or
trivial to this list? Should I send it to NOVICE?
Regards, Christoph
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: ch@rodos.fzk.de
Subject: Re: SET TIMEOUT equivalent / was: Lock timeout detection
In-Reply-To: <3E437DEF.406C7445@rodos.fzk.de>
* 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