Re: Is this a reasonable use for advisory locks?

From: Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com>
To: Perryn Fowler <perryn(at)fresho(dot)com>
Cc: Nick Cleaton <nick(at)cleaton(dot)net>, Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is this a reasonable use for advisory locks?
Date: 2022-04-28 17:25:53
Message-ID: CAHOFxGpXj7j5dYSudWz5f5cRaGSOY2sM=P9y-oSLNxUB-VJ+vA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

How many of these processes do you expect to have running concurrently? How
long does that API call take? Might it be better to update the customer (or
in a separate table as suggested) as "catch up charge process started at"
and then clear that or set completed time in another column to serialize?
That way, no need to hold that db connection while doing external work via
api.

>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message JORGE MALDONADO 2022-04-28 17:49:57 Re: Backing up a DB excluding certain tables
Previous Message Philip Semanchuk 2022-04-28 17:11:28 Could Postgres warn about incorrect volatility class?