From: | "Marc Morin" <marc(at)sandvine(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: partitioning and locking problems |
Date: | 2006-02-01 14:25:10 |
Message-ID: | 2BCEB9A37A4D354AA276774EE13FB8C263B3E5@mailserver.sandvine.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom,
Do you mean it would be impossible to change the code so that existing
selects continue to use the pre-truncated table until they commit? Or
just require a more extensive change?
The update/insert rule change appears to be more more doable? No?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50 AM
> To: Marc Morin
> Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] partitioning and locking problems
>
> "Marc Morin" <marc(at)sandvine(dot)com> writes:
> > Would like to understand the implications of changing postgres'
> > code/locking for rule changes and truncate to not require
> locking out
> > select statements?
>
> It won't work...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-01 15:20:21 | Re: partitioning and locking problems |
Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2006-02-01 12:15:09 | Re: Huge Data sets, simple queries |