On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure if I'm on the right track either but assuming that the batch job you have is a file that you feed to psql
froma cron job why don't you just make the specific process nice(1)er ?
cheers,
thalis
> --
> 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.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
