On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:30:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd actually been thinking about this recently, and had come up with the
> > following half-baked ideas:
>
> > Allow a transaction to specify exactly what tables it will be touching,
> > perh
Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'd actually been thinking about this recently, and had come up with the
following half-baked ideas:
Allow a transaction to specify exactly what tables it will be touching,
perhaps as an extension to BEGIN. Should any action that tra
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd actually been thinking about this recently, and had come up with the
> following half-baked ideas:
> Allow a transaction to specify exactly what tables it will be touching,
> perhaps as an extension to BEGIN. Should any action that transaction
> tak
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:39:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The general problem seems to be that a transaction has no way to promise
> > never to touch a specific table. Maybe some kind of "negative lock"
> > would help here - you'd do "exclude t
> > I guess what I'm asking for is a kind of "REBUILD TABLE" which is not
> > MVCC by definition but it would be useful in the mentioned queue table
> > case.
> >
>
> vaccum full ?
Nope, it won't work, it will still leave in all the dead tuples
potentially visible by old transactions, even if tho
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The general problem seems to be that a transaction has no way to promise
> never to touch a specific table. Maybe some kind of "negative lock"
> would help here - you'd do "exclude table foo from transaction" at the
> start of your transaction, whi
Csaba Nagy wrote:
There is, I believe, a problem there; there is a scenario where data
can get "dropped out from under" those old connections.
This has been added to the TODO...
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html
* Make CLUSTER preserve recently-dead tuples per MVCC requirements
O
On Friday 28 April 2006 12:20, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > There is, I believe, a problem there; there is a scenario where data
> > can get "dropped out from under" those old connections.
> >
> > This has been added to the TODO...
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html
> >
> > * Make CLUST
> There is, I believe, a problem there; there is a scenario where data
> can get "dropped out from under" those old connections.
>
> This has been added to the TODO...
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.TODO.html
>
> * Make CLUSTER preserve recently-dead tuples per MVCC requirements
OK, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Csaba Nagy) writes:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 15:20, kmh496 wrote:
>> 2006-04-28 (ê¸), 14:40 +0200, Csaba Nagy ì°ì길:
>> > I placed a cron job to
>> > cluster the queue table on it's PK index.
>> what does that mean?
>
> Means execute:
>
> CLUSTER pk_queue_table ON queue_table
> > actually does work, I can confirm that. Is it violating MVCC maybe ?
>
> Yes :-(. I think you can get away with it if all your transactions that
[snip]
Well, I actually don't want to get away this time :-)
This table is only processed by the queue manager and that uses very
short transactio
Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure how this operation can work in the presence of other long
> running transactions which did not touch the queue table yet, but it
> actually does work, I can confirm that. Is it violating MVCC maybe ?
Yes :-(. I think you can get away with it i
On Apr 28, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Csaba Nagy wrote:
I'm not sure how this operation can work in the presence of other long
running transactions which did not touch the queue table yet, but it
actually does work, I can confirm that. Is it violating MVCC maybe ?
It sounds like it does potentially vi
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 15:20, kmh496 wrote:
> 2006-04-28 (금), 14:40 +0200, Csaba Nagy 쓰시길:
> > I placed a cron job to
> > cluster the queue table on it's PK index.
> what does that mean?
Means execute:
CLUSTER pk_queue_table ON queue_table;
See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/sql-cluste
2006-04-28 (금), 14:40 +0200, Csaba Nagy 쓰시길:
> I placed a cron job to
> cluster the queue table on it's PK index.
what does that mean?
--
my site http://www.myowndictionary.com";>myowndictionary was
made to help students of many languages learn them faster.
---(end of
Hi all,
Short background: postgres does not support very well queue type tables
in an environment where these queue tables are small in size but heavily
inserted/updated/deleted, while there are activities in the system which
cause long running transactions. The reason is that the queue table
cann
16 matches
Mail list logo
