On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 01:23:07 -0500, "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:20:59PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote: > > Brendan Duddridge <brendan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > More likely you were blocking on some lock. Until that other query holding > > that lock tries to commit Postgres won't actually detect a deadlock, it'll > > just sit waiting until the lock becomes available. > > Wow, are you sure that's how it works? I would think it would be able to > detect deadlocks as soon as both processes are waiting on each other's > locks. I don't see how it could wait for a commit. If a command is blocked waiting for a lock, how are you going to get a commit (you might get a rollback if the query is aborted)?
