| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "'Pg Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: backend "niceness" / session_priority |
| Date: | 2015-07-30 15:54:42 |
| Message-ID: | 22356.1438271682@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Jos=E9_Luis_Tall=F3n?= <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net> writes:
> Since PostgreSQL lacks the resource management capabilities of the
> "Big Ones" ( Resource Groups - Red, WorkLoad Manager - Blue ) or the
> Resource Governor in MS SQL Server, we can try and approximate the
> requested behaviour by reducing the CPU priority ("nice") of the backend
> in question. Please note that we would be using scheduler priority to
> try and modulate I/O, though I'm aware of the limitations of this mechanism.
This has been proposed before, and rejected before, and I'm not seeing
anything particularly new here. Without a credible mechanism for
throttling I/O, "nice" alone does not seem very promising.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-07-30 16:03:01 | Re: LWLock deadlock and gdb advice |
| Previous Message | José Luis Tallón | 2015-07-30 15:47:06 | Proposal: backend "niceness" / session_priority |