On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 22:39 +0200, Peter Schuller wrote:
> Does this sound vaguely sensible? Is there an obvious show-stopper I
> am missing?
This was a well structured proposal.
The main problem is where you put the delay_point() calls. If you put
them at the top of the executor then you will get a delay proportional
to the number of rows retrieved. For many queries, such as count(*) this
might be just one row, yet have run for hours. There's no point having a
priority scheme if it doesn't apply to all queries equally.
If you put them at each call of each node then you will get an
unacceptable overhead as Tom suggests.
Not sure what to suggest, if anything, apart from just writing your own
delay() function and using it in your query.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-08-26 12:03:47|
|Subject: Re: gsoc, oprrest function for text search take 2|
|Previous:||From: Dave Cramer||Date: 2008-08-26 10:59:38|
|Subject: Re: can't stop autovacuum by HUP'ing the server|