Re: Vacuum as "easily obtained" locks

From: Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>
To: Michael Graham <mgraham(at)bloxx(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuum as "easily obtained" locks
Date: 2011-08-03 17:03:54
Message-ID: 8739hictqd.fsf@comcast.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Michael Graham <mgraham(at)bloxx(dot)com> writes:

> On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Michael Graham <mgraham(at)bloxx(dot)com> writes:
>> > Would my applications
>> > constant polling of the queue mean that the lock could not be easily
>> > obtained?
>>
>> Very possible, depending on what duty cycle is involved there.
>
> Hmm. The clients aren't that aggressive, especially when they failed to
> find data on a previous select, there are 4 clients, they each poll
> every 10 seconds and the select runs in <1ms.
>
> It might be worth noting that they don't ever disconnect from the
> server, but I assume that is not an issue for getting the
> AccessExclusiveLock on the table?

You are certain that those clients do these quick select as
auto-commit?

What does select current_query from pg_stat_activity say?

--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres(dot)consulting(at)comcast(dot)net
p: 305.321.1144

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Eduardo Morras 2011-08-03 17:21:21 Re: Vacuum as "easily obtained" locks
Previous Message Sam Nelson 2011-08-03 17:03:15 Hot Standby Lag Calculation