Re: Read-only connectios optimizatios

From: peter plachta <pplachta(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Edson Richter <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Read-only connectios optimizatios
Date: 2025-01-25 22:12:18
Message-ID: 1321473A-8A9F-4EA0-AC11-1312012623CC@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

You can still block vacuum from running if you have long running (or very aggressive) read transactions. I don’t think they are very helpful or performant from a Postgres engine perspective.
They can be helpful in application development because they will fail if devs attempt any mutations inside read only (from what I recall).

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 25, 2025, at 10:01 AM, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2025-01-25 at 14:55 +0000, Edson Richter wrote:
>> -Connections are established using the jdbc "readonly" attribute.
>>
>> Does PostgreSQL perform any optimization on queries in this scenario to avoid
>> establishing locks? Or are these queries treated like any other?
>
> The only difference that I am aware of is that read-only transactions at the
> SERIALIZABLE isolation level can release predicate locks earlier, which can
> benefit performance.
>
> But I don't think that you need to worry: reading transactions only take an
> ACCESS SHARE lock on tables, which won't conflict with data modifications.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message frits.hoogland 2025-01-25 22:42:02 Re: Any risk or overhead considerations for frequently executing queries against catalog tables?
Previous Message peter plachta 2025-01-25 22:08:29 Re: Any risk or overhead considerations for frequently executing queries against catalog tables?