From: | "Sriram Dandapani" <sdandapani(at)counterpane(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum ignore tables |
Date: | 2006-09-29 21:42:54 |
Message-ID: | 6992E470F12A444BB787B5C937B9D4DF060E5C95@ca-mail1.cis.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
The jdbc inserts go into the main parent table and check constraints
redirect them to child tables.
If I were to drop the rule, that would immediately affect the inserts
and they would go the the parent table. And I cannot lock the parent due
to the problem I mentioned earlier.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:38 PM
To: Sriram Dandapani
Cc: Matthew T. O'Connor; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] autovacuum ignore tables
"Sriram Dandapani" <sdandapani(at)counterpane(dot)com> writes:
> Real question is: Why do the INSERTS go into wait state as soon as the
> lock table statement is issued on the parent?
If you were just inserting directly into other child tables, a lock on
either the parent or the target child table shouldn't affect them.
I wonder if you are using conditional rules to redirect the inserts,
and the rules include a reference to the target table? If that's the
case, you really need to drop the relevant rule before you remove the
child table, anyway.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sriram Dandapani | 2006-09-29 21:44:15 | Re: [JDBC] number of transactions doubling |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-29 21:39:17 | Re: [JDBC] number of transactions doubling |