| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: My own performance/tuning q&a |
| Date: | 2003-10-24 20:50:34 |
| Message-ID: | 200310242050.h9OKoYX22829@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Vivek Khera wrote:
> >>>>> "sm" == scott marlowe <scott.marlowe> writes:
>
>
> sm> Note that Tom has mentioned problems with possible deadlocks when nicing
> sm> individual backends before, so proceed with caution here.
>
> I can see possible starvation, but if scheduling changes cause
> deadlocks, then there's something wrong with the design.
Yes, I think Tom's concern was priority inversion, where a low priority
process holds a lock while a higher one waits for it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-10-24 20:58:11 | Re: Performance Concern |
| Previous Message | Anjan Dave | 2003-10-24 19:22:45 | Re: PostgreSQL data on a NAS device ? |