| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Eduardo Piombino <drakorg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server |
| Date: | 2010-01-16 17:47:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4B51FB9E.4060207@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Robert Haas wrote:
> Seems like you'd also need to think about priority inversion, if the
> "low-priority" backend is holding any locks.
>
Right, that's what I was alluding to in the last part: the non-obvious
piece here is not how to decide when the backend should nap because it's
done too much I/O, it's how to figure out when it's safe for it to do so
without causing trouble for others.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre Frédéric Caillaud | 2010-01-16 23:23:30 | Re: Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-16 12:49:32 | Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server |