Before asking them to remove it, are we sure priority inversion is really a problem?
I thought this paper: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf did a pretty good job at studying priority inversion on RDBMs's including PostgreSQL on various workloads (TCP-W and TCP-C) and found that the benefits of setting priorities vastly outweighed the penalties of priority inversion across all the databases and all the workloads they tested. Bruce Momjian wrote: > Someone should ask them to remove the article. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tom Lane wrote: >> "Carlos H. Reimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> There is an article about "Lowering the priority of a PostgreSQL query" >>> (http://weblog.bignerdranch.com/?p=11) that explains how to use the >>> setpriority() to lower PostgreSQL processes. >>> I?m wondering how much effective it would be for i/o bound systems. >> That article isn't worth the electrons it's written on. Aside from the >> I/O point, there's a little problem called "priority inversion". See >> the archives for (many) past discussions of nice'ing backends. >> >> regards, tom lane >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
