Re: partitioning and locking problems

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
>
>

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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