On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 22:39 +0200, Peter Schuller wrote: > Does this sound vaguely sensible? Is there an obvious show-stopper I > am missing?
This was a well structured proposal. The main problem is where you put the delay_point() calls. If you put them at the top of the executor then you will get a delay proportional to the number of rows retrieved. For many queries, such as count(*) this might be just one row, yet have run for hours. There's no point having a priority scheme if it doesn't apply to all queries equally. If you put them at each call of each node then you will get an unacceptable overhead as Tom suggests. Not sure what to suggest, if anything, apart from just writing your own delay() function and using it in your query. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
