Re: [HACKERS] ExclusiveLock on PostgreSQL - Fabio Mendonça

2015-10-30 Thread Fabio Oliveira De Mendonca 

Thanks Robert. 

I read the material link and did help me to take a new decision

thank you.  
att.

Fabio Mendonça




De: Robert Haas 
Enviado: sexta-feira, 30 de outubro de 2015 07:49
Para: Fabio Oliveira De Mendonca
Cc: k...@it.is.rice.edu; gsst...@mit.edu; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; 
fabio.mendonca@gmail.com
Assunto: Re: [HACKERS] ExclusiveLock on PostgreSQL - Fabio Mendonça

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Fabio Oliveira De Mendonca
 wrote:
> I 've a process with 600.000 rows, for insert on table "A" with 130 columns
> and I'm received  the "Exclusivelock"   error message, making lost some
> rows during transaction.  The insert of transaction occurs on each  2 min.
> and for each 1 min, a second process read the table "A" (with Join Table "C"
> using  PK ) to make a insert on a table  ("B") . Well ,  I did think create
> a partitions on table "A",  but I don't believe get a correcting in the
> problem ( "Exclusivelock" ).

This isn't really the right mailing list for this question.

You might find 
https://listas.postgresql.org.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pgbr-geral
helpful, or you can ask at
http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-general/

You should also read
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems --
because this report does not contain enough information for someone to
answer your question.  In particular, including the exact text of any
commands you executed and any error or other messages the system
generated would be helpful.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] ExclusiveLock on PostgreSQL - Fabio Mendonça

2015-10-30 Thread Robert Haas 
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Fabio Oliveira De Mendonca
 wrote:
> I 've a process with 600.000 rows, for insert on table "A" with 130 columns
> and I'm received  the "Exclusivelock"   error message, making lost some
> rows during transaction.  The insert of transaction occurs on each  2 min.
> and for each 1 min, a second process read the table "A" (with Join Table "C"
> using  PK ) to make a insert on a table  ("B") . Well ,  I did think create
> a partitions on table "A",  but I don't believe get a correcting in the
> problem ( "Exclusivelock" ).

This isn't really the right mailing list for this question.

You might find 
https://listas.postgresql.org.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pgbr-geral
helpful, or you can ask at
http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-general/

You should also read
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems --
because this report does not contain enough information for someone to
answer your question.  In particular, including the exact text of any
commands you executed and any error or other messages the system
generated would be helpful.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] ExclusiveLock on PostgreSQL - Fabio Mendonça

2015-10-28 Thread Fabio Oliveira De Mendonca 
Hi friends,


I'm Fabio Mendonça (Brazil) and I initiated a work with PostgreSQL, I work with 
Oracle , DB2 , Sybase and Informix , but PostgreSQL is a sweet experience.


In this moment I'm looking any help, because the articles that I've found  not 
solve the problem.

The Cenario:


I 've a process with 600.000 rows, for insert on table "A" with 130 columns and 
I'm received  the "Exclusivelock"   error message, making lost some  rows 
during transaction.  The insert of transaction occurs on each  2 min. and for 
each 1 min, a second process read the table "A" (with Join Table "C" using  PK 
) to make a insert on a table  ("B") . Well ,  I did think create a partitions 
on table "A",  but I don't believe get a correcting in the problem ( 
"Exclusivelock" ).


I'm reading the your conversation about WAL performance and if I understood
, your sugestion was separed the WAL archives between fisical disks .

Please could  you confirm this solution or exist another form to resolve the   
"Exclusivelock" ? .


I appreciate any sugestion.


Thanks .

(sorry my english, cause I'm student on language)


Fabio Mendonça.

System Analist

BRQ (CAIXA FEDERAL )