Re: Partitioning and deadlocks
От | Brad King |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Partitioning and deadlocks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D45F1ECA30B59A4F96208F86532F901F0DB5475B@rdu-caex-01.channeladvisor.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Partitioning and deadlocks ("Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
Thanks for the reply. I really want to have something generic to garbage collect old data. This is pretty easy to do with re-writing check constraints but much more verbose if you have drop and recreate rules, since the column lists are different for each table. Also I have several related tables to deal with, which adds to the fun. I think I will go back to a non partitioned system at this point. I think the complexity involved in the solution is not worth the gain over plain old delete. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott.marlowe@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:51 PM To: Brad King Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Partitioning and deadlocks On 10/23/07, Brad King <brad.king@channeladvisor.com> wrote: > Let me re-phrase this to see if I can get any response. Has anyone used > partitioning with inheritance successfully ? Can you point to any > specific concurrency strategies for garbage collecting old partitions on > a live system ? Thank you. I've never truncated on a live one. It is pretty easy to just update the update/insert rules/triggers to ignore the old table, then drop it. I'm guessing you could do that, then recreate the table and get good performance.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: