| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Trigger functions and FDW tables |
| Date: | 2022-04-04 14:23:40 |
| Message-ID: | 1b6e2aca7c1540db4e6437f643425da38ef93663.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 09:18 -0500, Michael Nolan wrote:
> Is it not recommended to use a FDW table in a trigger function?
Yes, I would say that is not recommended. While a lag of a few seconds,
like you describe, should not be the normal case (you should investigate that),
it is hard to exclude it in the face of network failures (you could end up
waiting for the keepalive timeout of 2 hours).
So the trigger can potentially run a long time, which makes your transaction
long. A long transaction can block other sessions or autovacuum progress.
The rule of thumb is that you should have nothing inside a database transaction
that *could* take a long time (even if it is normally fast).
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arup Nanda | 2022-04-04 14:45:37 | Re: gist segmentation fault |
| Previous Message | Michael Nolan | 2022-04-04 14:18:48 | Trigger functions and FDW tables |