Thread
-
some problems with new locking code
Vadim Mikheev <vadim@sable.krasnoyarsk.su> — 1998-02-24T14:56:12Z
I created simple table (just single int4 attr) with index on it and tried to reproduce reported problems with BTP_CHAIN flag (without success, unfortunately ?) by inserting data by 3-4 psql-s simultaneously. No problems with 2 clients. But when 3rd psql starts one of psql-s becomes blocked for long time (a minutes). After some time blocked process may continue insertion but another process is sleeping instead of wake-uped proc. The same with 4 psql-s: one of process is always sleeping! It's very easy to reproduce - just create a file with >~ 100 INSERTs... I also run 2 insertion procs + 2 selecting procs - result is the same, one is always sleeping. Vadim P.S. Nevertheless, I really like new deadlock recognition code, thanks!
-
Re: [HACKERS] some problems with new locking code
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1998-02-24T19:56:58Z
> > I created simple table (just single int4 attr) with index on it > and tried to reproduce reported problems with BTP_CHAIN flag > (without success, unfortunately ?) by inserting data by 3-4 psql-s > simultaneously. No problems with 2 clients. But when 3rd psql > starts one of psql-s becomes blocked for long time (a minutes). > After some time blocked process may continue insertion but > another process is sleeping instead of wake-uped proc. The same > with 4 psql-s: one of process is always sleeping! Thanks for finding this, Vadim. I had meant to re-run my locking tests on the new code before the 6.3 final, but had not done it yet. I ran them now, and they didn't work as they should. It is fixed now. The problem was that I was incrementing a counter in a while conditional test, even though I was not executing the loop, and the counter was used in the next loop. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)