Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: autovacuum ignore tables

From: "Sriram Dandapani" <sdandapani(at)counterpane(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:42:54
Message-ID: 6992E470F12A444BB787B5C937B9D4DF060E5C95@ca-mail1.cis.local (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
The jdbc inserts go into the main parent table and check constraints
redirect them to child tables.

If I were to drop the rule, that would immediately affect the inserts
and they would go the the parent table. And I cannot lock the parent due
to the problem I mentioned earlier.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] 
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:38 PM
To: Sriram Dandapani
Cc: Matthew T. O'Connor; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] autovacuum ignore tables 

"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


pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Sriram DandapaniDate: 2006-09-29 21:44:15
Subject: Re: [JDBC] number of transactions doubling
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-09-29 21:39:17
Subject: Re: [JDBC] number of transactions doubling

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group