On 07/02/2016 09:01 PM, trafdev wrote:
I've also replaced "WITH agg_tmp AS ({sel_stmt}), upd AS ({upd_stmt})
{ins_stmt}" to "INSERT INTO .. ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE ...", but no
success - row level deadlocks still occur...
Is there a way to tell Postgres to update rows in a specified order?
Or maybe LOCK TABLE should be used?
My little voice says the below is the answer:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/sql-select.html#SQL-FOR-UPDATE-SHARE
I just do not have enough coffee in me yet to apply it your situation
directly.
Sessions are running concurrently because of flexibility - they are two
different scheduled jobs launching at different times and performing
different set of operations.
Of course I can play with scheduling timings and make them not intersect
with each other (which I've done already btw), but that's only a temp
solution.
So how in PostgreSQL-world 2 or more transactions can update the same
table without deadlocking? I can't believe it's not possible, there must
be some sort of synchronization primitive. Does it support a "named
mutex" concept from a system-programming world? I bet there is something
more suitable.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
