From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas O'Dowd" <tom(at)nooper(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Curtis Faith <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Advice: Where could I be of help? |
Date: | 2002-10-07 07:24:17 |
Message-ID: | 20021007092417.D32143@zf.jcu.cz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 03:53:47PM +0900, Thomas O'Dowd wrote:
> > 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.
<jog-to-developers>
... maybe try use latest MySQL with InnoDB tables :-)
</jog-to-developers>
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak | 2002-10-07 07:28:16 | Re: Server locale? |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-07 07:15:57 | Re: understanding insert slowdown |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve King | 2002-10-07 08:02:04 | Re: Bad rules |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-07 05:13:06 | Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |