On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 11:10:56PM +0200, Laurent HERVE wrote:
> Actually it seems impossible to set priorities to backends. But in a real
> database, which runs 24h / day, you might have to run batch programs that, for
> example, reads database to extract some data, but in parallel, you still have
> transactions which must be performed with good performance. Can we imagine
> that, in the future, it will be possible to set priority to backends allowing
> batch programs to run without giving penalty to interactive transactions ?
I'm not sure if I'm on the right track but this question comes up in various
places to do with locking and priorities.
If something is holding a lock but has a really low priority then other
processes with a higher priority may get jammed. This may not be a problem
with Postgres's not-really-locking model, but things are not as easy as they
sound.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
http://svana.org/kleptog/
> It would be nice if someone came up with a certification system that
> actually separated those who can barely regurgitate what they crammed over
> the last few weeks from those who command secret ninja networking powers.
