Re: Bad rules - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bad rules
Date
Msg-id 20734.1033742890@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Bad rules  (Steve King <steve.king@ecmsys.co.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
Steve King <steve.king@ecmsys.co.uk> writes:
> I am using postgres 7.2, and have rule on a table which causes a notify if
> an insert/update/delete is performed on the table.
> The table is very very small.
> When performing a simple (very simple) update on the table this takes about
> 3 secs, when I remove the rule it is virtually instantaneous.
> The rest of the database seems to perform fine, have you any ideas or come
> across this before??

Let's see the rule exactly?  NOTIFY per se is not slow in my experience.

(One thing to ask: have you done a VACUUM FULL on pg_listener in recent
memory?  Heavy use of LISTEN/NOTIFY does tend to bloat that table if you
don't keep after it with VACUUM.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Next
From: Manfred Koizar
Date:
Subject: Re: Correlation in cost_index()