| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone seen this kind of lock pileup? |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 22:02:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE4510E.9050302@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Hmm ... can you extract a test case? Or at least strace the backends
> involved?
No, and no. Strace was the first thing I thought of, but I'd have to
somehow catch one of these backends in the 3 seconds it's locked. Not
really feasible.
It might be possible to construct a test case, depending on how much the
user wants to spend on the problem. I'd estimate that a test case would
take 8-12 hours of my time to get working, given the level of activity
and concurrency required.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-11-17 22:48:31 | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
| Previous Message | Mladen Gogala | 2010-11-17 22:00:03 | Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql |