From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Shelby Cain <alyandon(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, SCassidy(at)overlandstorage(dot)com, Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: allow LIMIT in UPDATE and DELETE |
Date: | 2006-05-23 22:19:58 |
Message-ID: | 20060523221958.GG64371@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 03:49:01PM -0700, Shelby Cain wrote:
> My experience with job queues comes from clients that mostly use Oracle as the backend. However, even with Oracle a queue table should be storing information about a job and not have records unnecessarily locked simply because they are being "worked on" by another hypothetical "job runner" process... by this I mean that the status of a job should be updated to a distinct state at any given moment in time (eg: unprocessed, processing, processed). In the case I present above, if you are using Postgresql you wouldnt have any open long-running transactions on that table and vacuuming should work... or am I misunderstanding the issue?
The issue is that vacuum has to base it's decisions not on the oldest
running transaction that has locks on a table, but on the oldest running
transaction in the entire database, because that transaction could start
reading any table at any time. Until that changes, long-running
transactions of any kind and heavy-update tables simply won't mix well
at all in a single database.
I recently proposed a way around this [1], but it didn't get much
traction.
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-05/msg00184.php
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2006-05-23 22:20:06 | Re: background triggers? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-23 22:18:07 | Re: Why won't it index scan? |