I'm running concurrent Postgres queries like this: UPDATE foo SET bar = bar + 1 WHERE baz = 1234 Each query affects the fixed K number of rows, and I can't find a way to enforce the order in which ...
This is a restatement of a question asked on the GIS Stack Exchange here. Although it has GIS-specific elements it may be be a more general PostgreSQL effect. I have a PostgreSQL 8.4.4 database ...
Let's say that I have a long running query SELECT and this query holds a AccessShareLock on a table. While this query is being processed a new query which needs a AccessExclusiveLock on the table ...
I have a web application interacting with PostgreSQL (v8.4 & Centos Linux) which suddenly started locking some of the database's tables. Still have no idea what happened, since the code is not ...
We are considering pessimistic locking for our project (SELECT ... FOR UPDATE); as we are used to optimistic locking, we are afraid about the operation of the server being blocked on such a lock (lock ...
Scenario that might demonstrate different behavior for SELECTS depending on the isolation level: 1) 0:00 Thread A runs a query that returns 1000 rows that takes 5 minutes to complete 2) 0:02 Thread B ...
I'm trying to run the following Postgres migration script DROP TABLE some_table; DROP TABLE another_table; The problem is that this script causes excessive locking when run on the production ...
This is pretty simple, but I'm baffled by what PG does (v9.0). We start with a simple table: CREATE TABLE test (id INT PRIMARY KEY); and a few rows: INSERT INTO TEST VALUES (1); INSERT INTO TEST ...