| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Crotwell <crotwell(at)seis(dot)sc(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [JDBC] unlink large objects |
| Date: | 2001-06-12 23:07:03 |
| Message-ID: | 16286.992387223@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Philip Crotwell <crotwell(at)seis(dot)sc(dot)edu> writes:
> On a similar idea, has there been any thought to allowing regular backend
> processess to run at lower priority?
People suggest that from time to time, but it's not an easy thing to do.
The problem is priority inversion: low-priority process acquires a lock,
then some high-priority process starts to run and wants that lock.
Presto, high-priority process is now a low-priority waiter.
Detecting priority inversion situations would be difficult, and doing
anything about them would be even more difficult...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-12 23:33:15 | Patch to warn about oid/xid wraparound |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-12 23:02:09 | Re: BLOBs |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rainer Mager | 2001-06-13 22:37:57 | High memory usage |
| Previous Message | Yu Ye Zhou | 2001-06-12 16:40:04 | JDBC installation |