Re: Bad rules

From: Steve King <steve(dot)king(at)ecmsys(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Steve King <steve(dot)king(at)ecmsys(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bad rules
Date: 2002-10-07 08:02:04
Message-ID: 5B5F2A89A44ED5118A790090274DD8462AB5CD@SNOOPY
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thankyou very much for your enlightened comment, it worked a treat.

I do not seem to be able to find references to this kind of useful
information in the postgresql online manual or in books such as bruce
momjian's 'postgresql-introduction and concepts'. Where is this info to be
found other than the mailing list?

Thanks again.
Regards
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: 04 October 2002 15:48
To: Steve King
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bad rules

Steve King <steve(dot)king(at)ecmsys(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> I am using postgres 7.2, and have rule on a table which causes a notify if
> an insert/update/delete is performed on the table.
> The table is very very small.
> When performing a simple (very simple) update on the table this takes
about
> 3 secs, when I remove the rule it is virtually instantaneous.
> The rest of the database seems to perform fine, have you any ideas or come
> across this before??

Let's see the rule exactly? NOTIFY per se is not slow in my experience.

(One thing to ask: have you done a VACUUM FULL on pg_listener in recent
memory? Heavy use of LISTEN/NOTIFY does tend to bloat that table if you
don't keep after it with VACUUM.)

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD 2002-10-07 08:42:44 Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching
Previous Message Karel Zak 2002-10-07 07:24:17 Re: [HACKERS] Advice: Where could I be of help?