From: | "Peter T(dot) Brown" <peter(at)memeticsystems(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Robert B(dot) Easter'" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: controlling process priority |
Date: | 2001-12-20 17:27:08 |
Message-ID: | 001501c1897b$8dc5ae90$7d00000a@PETER |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc pgsql-sql |
I had an idea last night that addresses the process priority and the locking
issue: use LIMIT with an offset in a long running thread to programmatically
throttle the backend processing.
This works only because I am storing all the results to my queries as
pointers in a temporary table (then using those values as the basis for
subsequent queries).
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 7:10 AM
To: Robert B. Easter
Cc: Peter T. Brown; pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [SQL] controlling process priority
"Robert B. Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com> writes:
> [ C function to nice down the backend ]
This sort of thing has been suggested before, but I've always wondered
whether it isn't counterproductive. The trouble is priority inversion:
any time the niced backend is holding a lock on some shared
datastructure, it will be blocking the allegedly-higher-priority other
backends.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2001-12-20 17:52:08 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC Driver Munging My Text? |
Previous Message | Nick Fankhauser | 2001-12-20 17:18:13 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC Driver Munging My Text? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Terrence Brannon | 2001-12-20 19:49:40 | should temporary tables show up in \dt as type "temporary" or as something? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-20 17:09:11 | Re: Transaction and cascade problem |