| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |