| From: | Thomas O'Dowd <tom(at)nooper(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Curtis Faith <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Advice: Where could I be of help? |
| Date: | 2002-10-05 06:53:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1033800827.20171.27.camel@beast.uwillsee.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> just an idea, but if you're still searching something to work on, you might want to take
> a look on the deadlock problem with foreign keys. It seems there's a new kind of lock needed here,
> because it's possible to deadlock backends where no real deadlock situation occurs.
>
> IMO this is one of the biggest problems in postgres now, because for foreign keys are widely used and
> - even if not deadlocking - performance is limited because of the many "select ... for update" the fk system
> uses limit concurrency to one at a time in many situations.
That gets my vote too for what its worth... I had to remove most of the
FK references from my tables and just replaced them with triggers as the
amount of deadlocks I was getting in stress tests was killing me.
Tom.
--
Thomas O'Dowd. - Nooping - http://nooper.com
tom(at)nooper(dot)com - Testing - http://nooper.co.jp/labs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hubert depesz Lubaczewski | 2002-10-05 08:21:36 | Re: Fast Deletion For Large Tables |
| Previous Message | Garo Hussenjian | 2002-10-05 06:39:50 | Re: Boolean output format |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mats Lofkvist | 2002-10-05 08:46:03 | Use of sync() [was Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching] |
| Previous Message | Mario Weilguni | 2002-10-05 06:31:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Advice: Where could I be of help? |