From: | Eduardo Morras <nec556(at)retena(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hope for a new PostgreSQL era? |
Date: | 2011-12-12 00:10:04 |
Message-ID: | 4EE225850003E2F9@ |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Sorry for delay,
>>I wonder if the prioritisation could be done
>>using nice - each backend is a separate
>>process, so why not to do 'nice(10)' for low
>>priority processes or something like that.
>
>Yes, to a limited degree you can prioritise
>queries using nice and ionice, but it's awkward because:
>
>- All queries run as `postgres' so you can't do per-user limiting very easily
>
>- The postmaster doesn't have a way to set the
>nice level and ionice level when it forks a
>backend, nor does the backend have any way to do
>it later. You can use your own user-defined C functions for this, though.
Postmaster hasn't a way to modify the system nice
or ionice, but it can send signals to child
process. Sending a user signal to sleep
completely the child (i/o and cpu) or before any
i/o call can do the trick. Perhaps it's time to
add a query scheduler or a more complete/complex one in postgres.
>--
>Craig Ringer
----------------------------------------------
Si la vida te da la espalda, ¡tocale el culo!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert James | 2011-12-12 00:40:54 | Denormalizing via SQL |
Previous Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2011-12-12 00:08:58 | Re: Hope for a new PostgreSQL era? |