On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 12:50:29AM +0100, Aldor wrote:
Aug 25 14:53:32 forgehouse-s1 postgres[23721]: [2-1] LOG: duration:
567.559 ms statement: UPDATE session SET hit_time=now() WHERE
md5='7537b74eab488de54d6e0167d1919207';
Aug 25 14:53:32 forgehouse-s1 postgres[23722]: [2-1] LOG: duration:
565.966 ms statement: UPDATE session SET hit_time=now() WHERE
md5='d84613009a95296fb511c2cb051ad618';
Aug 25 14:53:33 forgehouse-s1 postgres[23723]: [2-1] LOG: duration:
1192.789 ms statement: UPDATE session SET hit_time=now() WHERE
md5='d84613009a95296fb511c2cb051ad618';
Aug 25 14:53:53 forgehouse-s1 postgres[23727]: [2-1] LOG: duration:
12159.162 ms statement: UPDATE session SET hit_time=now() WHERE
md5='d84613009a95296fb511c2cb051ad618';
Aug 25 14:53:54 forgehouse-s1 postgres[23728]: [2-1] LOG: duration:
3283.185 ms statement: UPDATE session SET hit_time=now() WHERE
md5='7537b74eab488de54d6e0167d1919207';
Aug 25 14:53:57 forgehouse-s1 postgres[23729]: [2-1] LOG: duration:
2116.516 ms statement: UPDATE session SET hit_time=now() WHERE
md5='7537b74eab488de54d6e0167d1919207';
Take a look to the timestamps... they are not really close to each other...
Eh? The timestamps show that the updates *are* close to each other.
What we don't know is whether this log excerpt shows all statements
that were executed during its time frame. It might have been grep'ed
from the full log file, or the log_min_duration_statement setting
might be such that only statements lasting more than a certain
amount of time are logged and we're not seeing similar updates that
happened quickly, nor when any of the updates were committed.
Marc, does my hypothesis of updates being blocked by other transactions
sound plausible in your environment? How complete a log did you
post -- is it everything, or are there other statements that you
omitted or that weren't logged because of the log_min_duration_statement
setting?
I'm working on it from that perspective ... apparently, there has been no
changes to teh database, only the application ... the weird thing is that
the application/database on teh development server (much less powerful)
isn't exhibiting the same problems, so I'm thinking there has to be
somethign slightly different between the two that they aren't thinking of
that they've made ...
Going to have to do a code review next, see if they've maybe thrown in a
TRANSACTION wouldn't realizing/thinking of it :(
Thanks ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
