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

Re: Partitioning and deadlocks

From: "Brad King" <brad(dot)king(at)channeladvisor(dot)com>
To: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioning and deadlocks
Date: 2007-10-24 16:52:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
Thanks for the reply. I really want to have something generic to garbage
collect old data. This is pretty easy to do with re-writing check
constraints but much more verbose if you have drop and recreate rules,
since the column lists are different for each table. Also I have several
related tables to deal with, which adds to the fun. I think I will go
back to a non partitioned system at this point. I think the complexity
involved in the solution is not worth the gain over plain old delete.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:51 PM
To: Brad King
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Partitioning and deadlocks

On 10/23/07, Brad King <brad(dot)king(at)channeladvisor(dot)com> wrote:
> Let me re-phrase this to see if I can get any response. Has anyone
> partitioning with inheritance successfully ? Can you point to any
> specific concurrency strategies for garbage collecting old partitions
> a live system ? Thank you.

I've never truncated on a live one.  It is pretty easy to just update
the update/insert rules/triggers to ignore the old table, then drop
it.  I'm guessing you could do that, then recreate the table and get
good performance.

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-24 18:26:34
Subject: Re: Problem with PITR Past Particular WAL File
Previous:From: Craig McElroyDate: 2007-10-24 16:46:52
Subject: Re: Problem with PITR Past Particular WAL File

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