From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
Cc: | Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
Date: | 2014-01-23 21:14:44 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC9=tTxGjEX9WvQ4JjU9Ep-asrmAtEyCV5Hmu3+QnWAew@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dne 23.1.2014 22:04 "Mark Kirkwood" <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
napsal(a):
>
> On 24/01/14 09:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> 2. What have you got that is requesting exclusive lock on pg_attribute?
That seems like a pretty unfriendly behavior in itself. regards, tom lane
>
>
> I've seen this sort of problem where every db session was busily creating
temporary tables. I never got to the find *why* they needed to make so
many, but it seemed like a bad idea.
>
Our customer had same problem with temp tables by intensively plpgsql
functions. For higher load a temp tables are performance and stability
killer. Vacuum of pg attrib has very ugly impacts :(
Regars
Pavel
After redesign - without tmp tables - his applications works well.
We needs a global temp tables
> Regards
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-23 21:15:50 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2014-01-23 21:14:18 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |