| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: huge table occupation after updates |
| Date: | 2016-12-12 01:42:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwY-Vzo_DjA+m1EzXGXkKmffSt3Db+-D=rgYaJJpkqnhgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I have one direct DB client (let's name it MIDAPP) only. This client of
> the DB is a server for up to 10000 final clients.
> Any time MIDAPP is going to reply to a client, it must save a "status
> record with some data" related to that client and only after that,
> answering /committing the final client.
> The next time the same final client will ask something, the same status
> record will be updated again (with a different content).
>
Why do you want to pay for concurrency control when you don't seem to need
it? While PostgreSQL likely can do what you need I suspect there are
applications out there that can solve this specific problem better. Even
something as simple as a flat file, one per "final client", written
atomically and fsynced after each write/rename.
David J,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-12 02:23:03 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: Would like to below scenario is possible for getting page/block corruption |
| Previous Message | Patrick B | 2016-12-12 00:31:05 | Re: WAL history files - Pgsql 9.2 |