> Is this the sort of problem that nice() might solve, or not?
No. Nice only handles CPU scheduling, not I/O. In fact, most kernels
give I/O bound processed higher priority because they are using valuable
shared resources while doing the I/O, so the kernel wants it to finish
as quickly as possible.
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >> I think Philip's idea of adding some delays into pg_dump is a reasonable
> > > >> answer. I'm just recommending a KISS approach to implementing the
> > > >> delay, in the absence of evidence that a more complex mechanism will
> > > >> actually buy anything...
> > > >
> > > >I am worried about feature creep here.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Philip Warner||Date: 2000-08-01 13:02:26|
|Subject: pg_dump & ownership (again)|
|Previous:||From: Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?=||Date: 2000-08-01 11:57:25|
|Subject: Re: RPMs built for Mandrake|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Don Baccus||Date: 2000-08-01 13:05:53|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump & performance degradation|
|Previous:||From: jeff seaman||Date: 2000-08-01 12:37:12|
|Subject: pg_dump problem|