Herouth Maoz wrote:
> I have a production system using Postgresql 9.1.2.
That's asking for trouble. There have been many bugs fixed in 9.1
since 2011-12-05, including security vulnerabilities and (more to
the point) bugs which caused vacuum processes to interact poorly
with tables used as queue
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Herouth Maoz wrote:
>
> On 18/02/2014, at 19:02, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Herouth Maoz wrote:
>
>> I have a production system using Postgresql 9.1.2.
>>
>> The system basically receives messages, puts them in a queue, and then
>> seve
On 18/02/2014, at 19:02, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Herouth Maoz wrote:
> I have a production system using Postgresql 9.1.2.
>
> The system basically receives messages, puts them in a queue, and then
> several parallel modules, each in its own thread, read from that q
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Herouth Maoz wrote:
> I have a production system using Postgresql 9.1.2.
>
> The system basically receives messages, puts them in a queue, and then
> several parallel modules, each in its own thread, read from that queue, and
> perform two inserts, then release th
Is there a more appropriate place to ask this question? Or was my question
unclear?
I dug some data, and it seems that whenever messages come at a rate of 75,000
per hour, they start picking delays of up to 10 minutes. If I go up to 100,000,
delays pick up to about 20 minutes. And for 300,000 i
I have a production system using Postgresql 9.1.2.
The system basically receives messages, puts them in a queue, and then several
parallel modules, each in its own thread, read from that queue, and perform two
inserts, then release the message to the next queue for non-database-related
processi
