| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Rankin <srankin(at)motus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Huge shared hit for small table |
| Date: | 2019-11-04 20:40:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkJMUmYbJFJ64t6wYQtLtRGvR5pPfjAfMdiWP=GPsTgVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:38 PM Scott Rankin <srankin(at)motus(dot)com> wrote:
> Definitely no long-running transactions on this table; in fact, this table is pretty infrequently updated – on the order of a few tens of rows updated per day.
But a long running transaction will have an impact on all tables --
not just the tables that happen to have been accessed so far in the
long running transaction. This is necessary because nothing stops the
long running transaction from SELECTing data from any table at any
time -- we need to pessimistically keep around the data required to
make that work.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Rankin | 2019-11-04 21:00:15 | Re: Huge shared hit for small table |
| Previous Message | Scott Rankin | 2019-11-04 20:38:36 | Re: Huge shared hit for small table |