avoid lock conflict between SELECT and TRUNCATE
От | Florin Andrei |
---|---|
Тема | avoid lock conflict between SELECT and TRUNCATE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0133b86430598a991e8639ec16ab4326@andrei.myip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: avoid lock conflict between SELECT and TRUNCATE
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Once in a while, I have a report running a complex query such as this: BEGIN;declare "SQL_CUR0000000004919850" cursor with hold for SELECT "auths_with_trans"."user_id" AS "user_id (auths_with_trans)", MAX("auths_with_trans"."user_created") AS "TEMP(attr:user_created:ok)(2099950671)(0)", MIN("auths_with_trans"."user_created") AS "TEMP(attr:user_created:ok)(99676510)(0)", MIN("auths_with_trans"."trans_time") AS "usr:Calculation_6930907163324031:ok", MIN("auths_with_trans"."auth_created") AS "usr:Calculation_9410907163052141:ok" FROM "public"."users" "users" LEFT JOIN "public"."auths_with_trans" "auths_with_trans" ON ("users"."user_id" = "auths_with_trans"."user_id") GROUP BY 1;fetch 100 in "SQL_CUR0000000004919850" But it takes a long time to complete, and meanwhile a cron job tries to rebuild the users table by first doing "TRUNCATE TABLE users" and then repopulating it with data. Obviously, TRUNCATE is blocked until the long SELECT finishes. I'm looking for ways to avoid the conflict. One way would be to do incremental updates to the users table - that's not an option yet. What if I rename the users table to users_YYYYMMDD? Would that still be blocked by SELECT? If it's not blocked, then I could rename users out of the way, and then recreate it with fresh data as plain 'users'. Then I'd have a cron job dropping old users tables when they get too old. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: