RE: low priority postmaster threads?
От | Chris Storah |
---|---|
Тема | RE: low priority postmaster threads? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | C05E7DA1218ED411BF8A00105AC95A8E017AFC20@SV-CNTRMAIL обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | low priority postmaster threads? (Chris Storah <cstorah@emis-support.demon.co.uk>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane Wrote: > The trouble here is that CPU nice doesn't (on most platforms) change the > behavior of the I/O scheduler, so this would only be of use to the > extent that your queries are CPU bound and not I/O bound. Assuming there is a major processor hit, and the backend has a UW-SCSI RAID box with enough I/O capability... >What happens when the low-priority process holds some lock or other, >and then a higher-priority process comes along and wants the lock? If the query was a select only, would the locking problem still apply? (The long queries in this case are in the form of 'select * from [all tables joined together] where x') I will make a couple of changes and test it to see if there are any performance gains in particular cases. The other option is to add another processor :) Chris
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: