From: | Edmund Dengler <edmundd(at)eSentire(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Buglist |
Date: | 2003-08-21 16:05:28 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.44.0308211203570.13334-100000@cyclops4.esentire.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Well, if they are locked waiting on vacuum, then vacuum should upgrade
it's priority to the highest waiting process (priority inheritance).
This way, vacuum will be running at a priority level equivalent to who is
waiting on it.
Regards,
Ed
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:41:41PM +0200, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > You mean, like, "nice 19" or so ?
>
> ISTR someone reporting problems with locking on the performance list
> from doing exactly that. The problem is that the vacuum back end
> might take a lock and then not get any processor time -- in which
> case everybody else gets their processor slice but can't do anything,
> because they have to wait until the niced vacuum process gets back in
> line.
>
> A
>
> --
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
> Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
> <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M2P 2A8
> +1 416 646 3304 x110
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edmund Dengler | 2003-08-21 16:56:18 | Re: Bulk Insert / Update / Delete |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-08-21 16:04:56 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Swan | 2003-08-21 16:10:05 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.4 Beta 1 + SSL + Cygwin |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-08-21 16:04:56 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |