On 9/20/24 1:01 PM, veem v wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sept, 2024, 8:40 pm Adrian Klaver, <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 9/19/24 05:24, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 5:17 AM veem v <veema0000@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:veema0000@xxxxxxxxx>
> This is really difficult to diagnose from afar with only snippets of
> logs and half-complete descriptions of your business logic. Pull
> everyone involved into a room with a whiteboard, and produce a
document
> describing exactly what your application does, and how it is
doing it.
> Switch from reactive to proactive.
Able to reproduce this deadlock graph as below. Now my question is ,
this is a legitimate scenario in which the same ID can get inserted from
multiple sessions and in such cases it's expected to skip that (thus "On
conflict Do nothing" is used) row. But as we see it's breaking the code
Yeah, as I see it that would not work with concurrent uncommitted
sessions as it would be unresolved whether a conflict actually exists
until at least one of the sessions completes.
with deadlock error during race conditions where a lot of parallel
threads are operating. So how should we handle this scenario? Will
setting the "lock_timeout" parameter at session level will help us
anyway here?
Serializable transaction?:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/transaction-iso.html#XACT-SERIALIZABLE
Or change the application code to not have this:
"... legitimate scenario in which the same ID can get inserted from
multiple sessions ..."
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
