From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marc Morin <marc(at)sandvine(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: partitioning and locking problems |
Date: | 2006-02-01 09:39:05 |
Message-ID: | 43E081B9.5050101@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Marc Morin wrote:
> Under both these circumstances (truncate and create / replace rule) the
> locking behaviour of these commands can cause locking problems for us.
> The scenario is best illustrated as a series of steps:
>
>
> 1- long running report is running on view
> 2- continuous inserters into view into a table via a rule
> 3- truncate or rule change occurs, taking an exclusive lock.
> Must wait for #1 to finish.
> 4- new reports and inserters must now wait for #3.
> 5- now everyone is waiting for a single query in #1. Results
> in loss of insert data granularity (important for our application).
How much would you get from splitting the view into two: reporting and
inserting?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | FERREIRA, William (VALTECH) | 2006-02-01 10:11:33 | execution plan : Oracle vs PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | PFC | 2006-02-01 09:01:39 | Re: Huge Data sets, simple queries |