| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | carlos(dot)reimer(at)opendb(dot)com(dot)br |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "Brad Nicholson" <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction |
| Date: | 2006-11-28 19:07:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4939.1164740825@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
"Carlos H. Reimer" <carlos(dot)reimer(at)opendb(dot)com(dot)br> writes:
> There is an article about "Lowering the priority of a PostgreSQL query"
> (http://weblog.bignerdranch.com/?p=11) that explains how to use the
> setpriority() to lower PostgreSQL processes.
> I?m wondering how much effective it would be for i/o bound systems.
That article isn't worth the electrons it's written on. Aside from the
I/O point, there's a little problem called "priority inversion". See
the archives for (many) past discussions of nice'ing backends.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Kostyrka | 2006-11-28 19:20:36 | Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction |
| Previous Message | Carlos H. Reimer | 2006-11-28 19:01:25 | RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Kostyrka | 2006-11-28 19:20:36 | Re: RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction |
| Previous Message | Carlos H. Reimer | 2006-11-28 19:01:25 | RES: Priority to a mission critical transaction |