| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert B(dot) Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Peter T(dot) Brown" <peter(at)memeticsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: controlling process priority |
| Date: | 2001-12-20 15:09:32 |
| Message-ID: | 8399.1008860972@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc pgsql-sql |
"Robert B. Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com> writes:
> [ C function to nice down the backend ]
This sort of thing has been suggested before, but I've always wondered
whether it isn't counterproductive. The trouble is priority inversion:
any time the niced backend is holding a lock on some shared
datastructure, it will be blocking the allegedly-higher-priority other
backends.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hunt, Bryan | 2001-12-20 16:33:16 | |
| Previous Message | Robert B. Easter | 2001-12-20 13:24:41 | Re: controlling process priority |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2001-12-20 16:08:14 | Re: Transaction and cascade problem |
| Previous Message | Carl van Tast | 2001-12-20 13:50:05 | Re: subselects |