case for lock_timeout
Hi,
With reference to:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-06/msg00935.php
Consider a case
1. wherein a database dump takes 2 hrs to complete.
2. A cron gets fired which drops a certain table and recreates it.
3. A set of frequently requested web pages depends on reading from the table in 2
Since 2 will wait for 1 till it finishes, and 3 will wait for 2 this means those
set of webpages will become inaccessible while the backup is in progress.
Whereas if we have something like a lock_timeout 2 will abort within a limited
time duration automatically and the sys admin could get notified to reschedule
it and this problem can get averted.
I feel lock_timeout it will be a nice feature . Lemme know what would be
the solution of the above problem from existing set of features.
Regds
Mallah.
-----------------------------------------
Over 1,00,000 exporters are waiting for your order! Click below to get
in touch with leading Indian exporters listed in the premier
trade directory Exporters Yellow Pages.
http://www.trade-india.com/dyn/gdh/eyp/
<mallah@trade-india.com> writes:
I feel lock_timeout it will be a nice feature . Lemme know what would be
the solution of the above problem from existing set of features.
AFAICS statement_timeout would work just fine for that; or you could
use NOWAIT.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
<mallah@trade-india.com> writes:
I feel lock_timeout it will be a nice feature . Lemme know what would be
the solution of the above problem from existing set of features.AFAICS statement_timeout would work just fine for that; or you could
use NOWAIT.
ok, you mean we should put statement timeout with statements
that potentially lock table exclusively. eg
OTHER SQLS 1....
set statement_timeout = <some reasonable time>
DROP TABLE table_name;
set statement_timeout = 0;
OTHER SQLS 2....
BTW does drop table or alter table have any other reasons
to timeout other than waiting for a lock ? In former case
the query will get cancelled for an invalid reason.
Regds
mallah.
Show quoted text
regards, tom lane
Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah@trade-india.com> writes:
ok, you mean we should put statement timeout with statements
that potentially lock table exclusively. eg
Actually I think it'd work better to put NOLOCK on the read-only
operations. Those guys should never fail to get the lock they need
under ordinary circumstances. If you happen to be running some kind
of schema-altering process in parallel, then the read-only guys will
fail immediately instead of waiting, but AFAICT that's what you wanted.
regards, tom lane