| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Sriram Dandapani" <sdandapani(at)counterpane(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum ignore tables |
| Date: | 2006-09-29 21:38:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3831.1159565887@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Sriram Dandapani" <sdandapani(at)counterpane(dot)com> writes:
> Real question is: Why do the INSERTS go into wait state as soon as the
> lock table statement is issued on the parent?
If you were just inserting directly into other child tables, a lock on
either the parent or the target child table shouldn't affect them.
I wonder if you are using conditional rules to redirect the inserts,
and the rules include a reference to the target table? If that's the
case, you really need to drop the relevant rule before you remove the
child table, anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-29 21:39:17 | Re: [JDBC] number of transactions doubling |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-09-29 21:03:32 | Re: How can I restore from WAL log? [PG 7.3] |